Talk:Revolt of the Lash/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Nick-D in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 01:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply


Comments

edit

I'll post a review of this interesting-looking article over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

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.
  • "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
  • 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.
  • "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)Reply

Assessment

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. 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:  
  2. 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:  
  3. 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):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. 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:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: