Wikipedia:Peer review/Monarchy of Spain/archive1

Monarchy of Spain

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

My eyes have been on it too long and not enough views that have generated comments! lol. I have watched the page for a year looking to see if there were improvements, but none. So, this past summer I started editing the artical answering questions that I would have for the Spanish monarchy. There are other sections I wish to add, but before I go further I wished to get comments on what is present.

Thanks, ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago I considerably reorganized the article, but it was returned to a previous version as Drachenfyre and I don't fully agree on all aspects of how the article should be organized and focused. Hopefully this review can bring in different ideas and perspectives. Ltwin (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lt, list your concerns as a peer review so we may work on them! :) ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an odd name (help honey) Mainly if going for featured article status (and one should try to at least aim for that), but may also apply to good article status, article accessibility, and general policy as well.

Fix the dab links and loopback link. Would you want to be forced to pick from a list of same-named articles, or click a link to the article you're already on?

I'm not sure yet how to fix this yet. Can you provide a link to what you are suggesting?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you open this review's subpage (the previous text will be bold if you're on the right page), you will notice the links "disambig links" and "external links near the top. Look for the listed links in the article, and replace them with working links.

In "disambig links", just look for any links in the article that match the listed ones and change them to a more specific page. In "external links", you will notice white boxes and colored boxes: click each colored box to see if the link works. If you get an error message instead of a page, change them or look for archives of the dead pages in the Internet Archive or WebCite. You may need to edit both the article and its templates (like this navigation box at the bottom) to fix all of them. --an odd name 07:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least two dead external links. Use WebCite to retain URLs if they often go dead after you add them.
- Speaking of links, make sure citations are consistently formatted. Do so quickly, before the article expands to an unmanageable mess.

I think the artical is already expanded to an unmanageable mess! Ill be working on changing the citations to the WebCite.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images have no alt text. Try to at least add a brief alt whenever a new image is added. The dynastic line in "History" should, at the very least, have an alt that says roughly how many royals have preceded the current one.
- On that note, I'm not convinced the dynastic line image in "History" is actually Iacobuslatinus's work—the "1"s in the right-side corners with the crown on top suggests it's a page from another source. If it is from a pamphlet or poster with no copyright, it should be labeled so, and not licensed (there is no right to do so). Such copyright problems can delay or deny promotion.

Gods I would hate to lose that image, but after looking at other posts, I tend to agree now. I'll shoot him a pm for clairification, will remove in mean time :( ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The concept of lèse majesté ("lesa majestad") exists in Spanish jurisprudence, as in other legal systems, which is the crime or offense violating the dignity of the head-of-state, or against The State, which in Article 56 of the Constitution the Spanish monarch and the dignity of the Spanish State are one and the same; "The King is Head of State, the symbol of its unity and permanence" (El Rey es el Jefe del Estado, símbolo de su unidad y permanencia)"—tl;dr. Split the sentence and explain what lèse majesté is right after ("lesa majestad"). Check for such long, rambly sentences throughout—educate, don't confuse.

Broke sentence into two, and looking for others. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "¿Por qué no te callas?", a relatively modern event, really relevant to the main article about the monarchy throughout history? "King Juan Carlos may have breached lèse majesté himself" does not convince me it's important—it's unsourced and original research.

I removed this section, it is an event in 2007 but does not deserve this much detail now. Also, though I wrote that the king "may have breeched"... it does seem more like OR now that I reread the section. So removed. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some things to avoid (added on 05:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)):

Short paragraphs. Combine single sentences and two-sentence paragraphs near each other. Do the same for small article sections. This makes the article smoother to read.
Multiple uses of the same ref for the same statement.
Linking to YouTube videos unless you are completely sure they are authored and uploaded by a reliable source—don't link to unauthorized copies of someone else's video! If in doubt, just delete them all.

Will do! But what a find in an of themselves!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ibid." for citations—they get moved and deleted often.

--an odd name (help honey) 22:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AnOddName! Much to soak in, which I am working on right now! I see your points! ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the removal of ¿Por qué no te callas?: I think it might still be relevant. Hugo Chavez hasn't attended a single Ibero-American Summit since that incident... Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of diplomacy between the two countries (Spain and Venezuela), that seems a much more solid rationale for inclusion than the "lèse majesté" original research, and (if properly sourced) I won't oppose its inclusion for that reason.

Still, I'll repeat—with some edits—one of my questions above. Prepare for others to ask, given Spain's long history and the rules for proper weight and trivia sections: Are the habits of Hugo Chavez, a relatively modern head of state, really relevant to the main article about Spain's monarchy throughout history? At the featured article stage, articles should avoid unnecessary detail. --an odd name 12:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One comment on "Spain's monarchy throughout history?". I had written the artical from the perspective of a contemporary monarchy, though reference it's history. From my perspective another artical specifically focused on the History of the Spanish Monarchy would be appropriate for a detailed historical narrative. The artical "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" to me focuses too much on the historical monarchy rather then on how the British monarchy operates today. I had written this artical asking that question... how does the Spanish monarchy operate today.

I don't think ¿Por qué no te callas? is as appropriate in the "lèse majesté" section as I once did. I had included it there as it seemed to me to be indeed a "lèse majesté" on the part of the king towards another head of state. But there is nothing in any sorce which states that exactly, so it's inclusion there would be origional research.

It is an important event, but it prehaps should be mentioned within a one or two sentence statement rather then the detail that it goes into here, no?

AnOddName: Is the "lèse majesté" section stronger now that the ¿Por qué no te callas? is removed? It seems to me a stronger section.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section is stronger. Maybe you can re-add it to section "The king and queen". I think the current and historical events should be balanced, maybe half each; I just don't want this to suffer from "recentism" and get filled with a news event every week or two. --an odd name 07:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: I have to say, I think every single important thing is mentioned in this article. Good job! I have a few doubts about the way it is presented, though. Wouldn't it make more sense to present the info about The Crown and Constitution (and the Royal Household of the King) before the Monarchy in Contemporary Spanish life? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first point, there's certainly a lot to take in. I'd expect few or none to oppose the article on criterion 1b in a FAC. It may even need more splitting off, but I have no preference and there are definitely longer featured articles. --an odd name 12:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raystorm: So you would have 'Contemporary Monarchy' after the Crown and the Constitution? I am not averse to that and will change it see how it flows today.

AnOddName: Do you really think it is nearing FAC level?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has a lot of info, but it needs cleanup. Watch for phrases that don't need to start with capital letters, combine related paragraphs and sentences, and (if you haven't already) ask one of the editors in this copyeditor list or the League of Copyeditors for help with the full article. Ideally, get a copyedit from someone who's not familiar with the subject (to get rid of jargon and other problems).

You also should make sure all your citations are to reliable sources—less random blogs, more strong news outlets and academic journals. You might even find more interesting facts from them. --an odd name 07:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be asking one or more of the copy editors you suggest tonight for their eyes and more cleanup. The Leage of Copyeditors seems a dead group according to the linky.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always confuse the League and the Guild :( --an odd name 10:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still see short paragraphs, "Ibid.", and use of "Artical" instead of "Article" (is this intentional?). There was also at least one link that was broken because there was a line break in its title. You should fix as much as you can before sending it for copyedits—copyeditors are overworked and don't like to deal with big articles full of problems.

Finally, ref 47 says:

The blogsite Tradition in Action should not be seen as a legitimate source, as their articles and the journalistic credentials of its contributors, largely Carlist and far right hard liners, have not been ascertained. Rather, it may serve as an example of far right, Carlist, and conservative opinion of the Spanish monarchy Tradition in Action

Why is it cited at all then, and how do we then know that there even is a sizable "far right [criticizing] King Juan Carlos personally because he has given his royal assent and tacit approval to what they perceive to be a liberal agenda in Spain and a secularism of Spanish life"? See WP:Undue weight. --an odd name 10:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've received the request for copy edit; I'm working on it now. If you have any particular questions or concerns please let me know (preferably on my talk page as I might not check back here while in the middle of the copy edit, but I'll get a notification if you use my talk page). --Shirik (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Articles! Didnt realize there were so many left. Removed citation from TiA, and found an english sourced reference to where Federico Jiménez Losantos calls for Juan Carlos to abdicate. Will look for more Spanish language sources tonight. Will remove the Ibid tonight. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 12:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidence requested:

I must admit that I am uncertin when to use the origional language, in this case Spanish, when referencing technical terms and names. I am now looking it up in the Wiki style guide, but might anyone comment to the use of foreign terms and languages in the artical?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from WP:ITALICS: "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialised English." Mm40 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am still uncertin though regarding using translations of sections of the Spanish constitution right under the English translations. Do you have a comment on this by chance?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]