Talk:Spain in Our Hearts/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 18:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

All of my suggestions are up for discussion. Once complete, I'll be claiming points for this review in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Lead

   "Author Adam Hochschild knew several..." - He's already been introduced, so his last name is all that's needed here.

 Done

1. The lead calls the lukewarm review "one of the few", and the Critical response section calls it "rare". I may have missed it, but do any of the sources support this adjective? If not, I'd omit them and let the "generally well-received" phrase do the work.

 Done

1. Background and development

   I'm not sure the sentence on the title's derivation is worth a full subsection, but will leave it up to you.

   Content

   no concern

   Critical response

   "moving[12][20][13] narrative" - the refs should be in numerical order. There are five instances of this in the section.

 Done

1. "the Republic's cause.[14][23][24][25][26]" - I think a long train of citations can impair reading, especially in the middle of a sentence. When possible, I like to combine them (see ref 56 and 57 on Lazarus (comics), for example). Since they're all used just once in the article, refs 23-26 seem like good candidates for this. It's up to you, though. I was told once that this practice is "lazy".

 I agree that combining the refs looks cleaner so I've gone ahead and done that.

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   no concern

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:

   no concern

   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:

   no concern

   C. It contains no original research:

   no cocern

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   no concern - one high return caused by a lengthy quote that is property attributed and cited in the article.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   no concern

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   no cocern

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   no concern

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   no concern

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:

   no concern

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The infobox image needs WP:ALTTEXT describing what the cover looks like.

 Done

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Review is on hold, pass pending response to the notes given above.

@Argento Surfer: Thanks for doing this review. Hope I've sufficiently addressed the above issues. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)