Talk:Revolt of the Lash/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Nick-D in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 01:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments
editI'll post a review of this interesting-looking article over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is in excellent shape. I have the following comments:
- Is note 'B' necessary?
- I think it is; there were a few details that I left out, as that level of nuance didn't seem appropriate for the lead. Am happy to reconsider if you think it's a bad idea.
- As the text links to the article and it's fairly clear that it's a simplified version, I think that it should be omitted: it looks a bit like a comment, and detracts from the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Good argument—I've removed the note! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- As the text links to the article and it's fairly clear that it's a simplified version, I think that it should be omitted: it looks a bit like a comment, and detracts from the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is; there were a few details that I left out, as that level of nuance didn't seem appropriate for the lead. Am happy to reconsider if you think it's a bad idea.
- "These officers were fond of inflicting corporal punishment" - is "fond" the right word here? It makes it sound like the officers enjoyed this. "Frequently inflicted" perhaps?
- Fixed.
- "forty-five percent of its authorized personnel (in 1896) " - this is then repeated in the same para
- Fixed.
- Can more be said about what the planning ahead of the mutiny involved? - it's stated that the mutiny was planned well in advance, but not much further detail is currently provided
- Added, although the diff is hard to read.
- Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Added, although the diff is hard to read.
- Do any of the sources discuss how the skills of the crews of the ships improved, and what this meant for the individuals' self-respect and attitudes? There seems to be a story here about the modernisation of the navy leading to the transformation of the crew from a lowly-skilled labouring underclass into what were essentially skilled workers which could be more fully fleshed out.
- I strongly suspect that info is in A marinha brasileira na era dos encouraçados, 1895–1910, as 'technological advances without accompanying social change' is basically Martins' thesis in six words. However, I don't speak Portuguese (the info in this article was related by a Brazilian editor), so for now, I won't be able to act on this.
- On that topic, as a suggestion for the further development of the article, it might be worth looking through the literature on labour relations for material on this topic.
- Thanks for the idea! The revolt is surprisingly not well covered in non-naval contexts, but I'm wondering if I'm just not Googling correctly. Have any ideas?
- Not beyond trawling JSTOR and similar academic databases. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's sadly much not there on this directly. Would love to make comparisons, but that'd have to be off-wiki. :-) `Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Not beyond trawling JSTOR and similar academic databases. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the idea! The revolt is surprisingly not well covered in non-naval contexts, but I'm wondering if I'm just not Googling correctly. Have any ideas?
- "A significant percentage" - could you say "around half" given the numbers discussed in note G? I'd also suggest bringing the content of this note into the body of the article given its importance.
- Added the 1,500–2,000 out of 4,000 figure.
- "Unfortunately" - seems like editorialising, and isn't necessary
- Good call, I meant to say "unfortunately for the government" or something similar, but I've just removed it.
- File:Rui barbosa.jpg probably needs to be tagged with {{FoP-Nederland}} or similar
- Done!
- File:JCandido.JPG needs to be tagged with {{FoP-Brazil}}
- Done as well.
- Could the process by which the Navy was re-manned be discussed? Did the new sailors enjoy the improved conditions the mutineers had won, or were these pulled back? Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is there anything which can be added on this suggestion? Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- {[ping|Nick-D}} My apologies for missing this. Neither Love nor Morgan, the two major sources here, directly address that (which for Morgan actually surprises me, given his thesis). I've added what I can. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Nick-D: ... I screwed up the ping above. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- @The ed17: Sorry I missed this: I'm very pleased to pass this review. And Merry Christmas! Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Nick-D: ... I screwed up the ping above. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- {[ping|Nick-D}} My apologies for missing this. Neither Love nor Morgan, the two major sources here, directly address that (which for Morgan actually surprises me, given his thesis). I've added what I can. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Nick-D. I've left replies interspersed above and will get to the rest shortly. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nick-D, I've finished responding to your points. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Is there anything which can be added on this suggestion? Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Assessment
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
