Talk:Legacy of Pedro II of Brazil/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

This article is well referenced and well-illustrated, however, I don't regard major parts of the article has being compliant with WP:WIAGA. Pyrotec (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Lead -

The WP:lead lead is intended to provide both an Introduction to the article and a summary of the main points in the article.

• It fails to Introduce Pedro II of Brazil, i.e. who he was and what was his claim(?) to fame.
• Little information is provided, other than he came from Brazil and had died.
• The Lead should not contain a {{Main}} link, as the function of the Lead is to Introduce and summarise the article, not provide a link to other articles; and the article should stand alone as a article in its own right.
• An Information box, such as {{Infobox royalty}}, but there are others, should be provided, giving biographical information. That would reduce the amount of textural information need in the lead.

• Legacy -
  • Post mortem -

• Post mortem tends to have a specific meaning, as in Post mortem. This section does not appear to be about this topic, it is merely a series of quotations. I suggest a more suitable subsection title be found.
• This section appears to be a collection of quotations; albeit well referenced:
• The first paragraph is a string of sentences (quotations, but well referenced). They are provided without explanation and without adequate Introduction (either in the Lead, or in this section).
• The second paragraph is somewhat better as there is a common theme, song, and that is stated in the first sentence. However, it's not certain whether the final sentence is a comment or a lyric.
• The last two paragraphs are somewhat better.

• • The end of exile -

• This subsection appears to be generally GA-compliant.

• • The Emperor returns home -

• This subsection appears to be generally GA-compliant.

• Historians's view -

• The first paragraph appears to be generally GA-compliant.
• The remainder of this section is an extended series of quotations.
• There is no discussion of who the authors of the quotations are (other than their names and citations), why they were selected, or indeed the validity of their comments.
• I suggest that this information be converted into text and the relevant citations used to identify the contributors.

I don't regard the article is GA-compliant. However it is well-referenced and therefore compliant with WP:Verifiability, so I'm putting this review On Hold. If it can be brought up to standard in a reasonable time, then I will continue the review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Remarks by Lecen

First of all, thank you very much for taking your time to review this article. I believe this is the third time you do that and I am grateful. Now, about the article itself:

1. I will improve the lead and explain better who Pedro II was.
2. The "main" link will be removed.
3. The lack of a infobox occurred because I am taking as a model to my series about the life of Pedro II, last Emperor of Brazil, the ones about Joseph Smith, Jr., such as Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. which is considered "featured". Astynax, the other editor who is also contributing with the articles, is trying to create an infobox similar to the one in the articles about Joseph Smith, Jr., that is, with links to all parts of the series.
4. I will create a new title for the first section and I will also diminish the number of quotations.
5. The first section (post mortem) deals with Pedro II's image in Brazil after his overthrown in 1889 up to around 1906. The second section (The end of exile) deals with his image from 1906 up to 1920. And the last one (The Emperor returns home) is from 1920 to the 21th century. I have noticed that that is not made very clear in the text andIi will fix it.
6. Second and third subsections: ok.
7. On the the last section (Historians's view): they are British, American and Brazilian historians who wrote biographies about Pedro II. What exactly do you mean about better info on them? Simply stating that their nationality, their career (historian) and that they wrote biographis about Pedro II is enough? Or I need to look in the internet for information regarding them?

I believe there is plenty of time to fix all errors. Once more, thank you! --Lecen (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm happy to accept an infobox based on Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., but somewhere in the Lead or the Infbox in the lead, should be some basic information, including dates of birth and death, dates of office (not a good label for an Emperor, I admit). Pyrotec (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• I suspect that stating that they were historians and biographers of the Emperor would be OK. The main problem is Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse. Pyrotec (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'm thinking in terms of one week, but as long as progress is being made there is some flexibility. Pyrotec (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

As a result of improvments to the article during the Hold period, I now regard it as being of GA quality.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

In view of recent improvements, i.e. an expanded WP:Lead and the removal of excessive WP:Quotations, I'm happy to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on your recent work. Whilst the new Navigation box is helpful, this article really aught to have an Infobox; and that that reason I'm leaving the WP:Biography assessment as B-class. Pyrotec (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)