Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive4

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 11:36, 28 April 2012 [1].

May Revolution edit

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a key event in the history of Argentina, and I have worked a lot with it. I worked first with Argentine books, as those made the most comprehensive study of this topic (not surprising), but I checked some books in English as well. I have also trimmed down some parts to related articles, but trying to keep this as an article that could be understood on its own, having in mind that most readers from outside Argentina or even South America are unlikely to have even a clue on who were this people or the events described.

All the issues pointed during the previous nominations were addressed by then. This article has been promoted to A-Class by the Military History wikiproject. Cambalachero (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by North8000 Not a thorough review of any criteria, just comments. A well written, very informative, very encyclopedic article. Two minor suggestions. The 3rd sentence in the second paragraph of the lead is very confusing. "Loss" to who? Seems to say that the uprising caused loss of territory to its side, but an uprising doesn't have territory to start with. Suggest clarification. Also it goes into details about the Primera Junta without introducing it with a sentence that simply states what it is. Suggest adding that sentence. Overall, nice work! North8000 (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, the Spanish uprising (which I clarified) was indeed controlling sectors of the country, lost during the Napoleonic advance. I shouldn't go into more detail, as long as the info is correct and possible to understand on its own, as the peninsular war is a background topic, not "the" topic of this article. Cambalachero (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Eisfbnore

Lead

"The Supreme Junta retreated to Cadiz and dissolved itself, being replaced by the Council of Regency of Spain and the Indies." – I don't very much like the participial construction in this sentence; I'd try "..., and was replaced by" (see WP:PLUSING).
"Viceroy Cisneros tried to conceal the news in order to maintain the political status quo, but a group of criollo lawyers and military officials organized an open cabildo (an extraordinary meeting of notables of the city) on May 22 to decide the future of the Viceroyalty" – 'in order to' is an unnecessarily verbose formulation; try 'to' instead.
"However, this caused a great deal of popular unrest" – 'a great deal' is a touch informal; perhaps try "However, this caused much popular unrest".

Causes section

"With the overthrow and execution of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, that revolution brought to an end centuries of monarchy" – a more logical English phrase order would be "With the overthrow and execution of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, that revolution brought centuries of monarchy to an end".
"Books from the United States found their way into the Spanish colonies through Caracas, due to the proximity of Venezuela to the United States and the West Indies." – swap the adjectival 'due to' for the adverbial 'owing to', as its antecedent is not the verb 'to be'.

Prelude section

I have no quibbles regarding this section

More to come. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 16:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cambalachero (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May week section

"The May Week was the period of time in Buenos Aires beginning with the confirmation of the fall of the Supreme Central Junta and ending with the dismissal of Cisneros and the establishment of the Primera Junta" – Disagree you may, but I would honestly challenge you to remove every third gerund-participle construction in the article. Please try it; swap 'beginning' for 'which began' and 'ending' with 'ended' and you'll see the prose certainly be improved. The same goes for the next sentence – "On May 14, 1810, the British war schooner HMS Mistletoe arrived at Buenos Aires from Gibraltar with European newspapers reporting the dissolution of the Supreme Central Junta the previous January." – WP:PLUSING explicitly recommends against present participles after nouns.

"Leiva left the Cabildo and Belgrano, representing the crowd, requested a definitive commitment" – Alas, I'm too thick to understand what this sentence is trying to tell me. Are there words missing?

Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 11:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I changed most "-ing" verbs with other variants. Cambalachero (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath section

"The cities of the Upper Peru, however, did not take a position, due to the recent outcomes of the Chuquisaca and La Paz Revolutions." – Another erroneous use of the adjectival 'due to'; please swap it for 'owing to'.

"Ocampo refused to shoot the captive Liniers, so the execution ordered by the Junta was carried out by Juan José Castelli." – 'so' is a touch informal; how about "Ocampo refused to shoot the captive Liniers; hence, the execution ordered by the Junta was carried out by Juan José Castelli."

"The Junta was defeated in 1814 at the Battle of Rancagua, and the subsequent Reconquista of Chile would made it a royalist stronghold once more." – Grammar: the 'made' should be 'make', no?

Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 17:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cambalachero (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical perspectives section

"The first remarkable historiographical school of interpretation of the history of Argentina was founded people of the 1837 generation, like Bartolomé Mitre." – Am I being extremely thick, or is this sentence simply indigestible? Seems to be a verb or preposition missing.

Legacy section

Seems to be a quite reasonable section. No qualms.

Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 18:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Someone removed a "by" that was there, fixed Cambalachero (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support (on prose only). --Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 07:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not comfortable copyediting this one ... again and again, I keep wondering how often the Spanish phrases turn up in English sources, and how familiar English-speakers are with the words, concepts, geography and history. I don't have a good sense of any of this. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware that this is an obscure topic in English literature, and none of the people mentioned is likely known by readers. That issue has been adressed before, and all the people mentioned has descriptions of their office or role in the event. Readers may not know, for example, who are Cisneros or Cornelio Saavedra, but being told that they are the viceroy or the commander of the army, they know enough to understand the article. If you noticed something that needs further explanations say so, otherwise, this is a non-actionable complain. Cambalachero (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not complaining, I'm saying I don't know what I need to know to do a copyeditor's job here. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wilhelmina Will:

Introduction: After familiarizing myself with the FA criteria, I examined the intro, and as far as I can see, it checks out. The image in the infobox is validly licensed and used appropriately, the infobox itself is well-structured, and the intro is very informative for a quick summarizing read - I also doubt that it is overly detailed, considering the length of the article. ;) I'm afraid I'll have to review the sections of this article a bit sporadically, as I have many things to do both in Wikipedia and out, but I'll review the first of the body sections as soon as possible. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. Take the time you need, there are more or less two or three weeks to get reviews before FACs are closed. Just try, if possible, to make some review before that. Cambalachero (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Causes#International causes: Finally I've managed to sneak in a moment to look further into this article. This is another well-written and composed section, as with the intro - I might put in that I find the captions for the images to be outstandingly worded. I cannot see anything wrong with this part of the article. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Causes#National causes: There were a few minor grammatical errors in this section, but nothing that I wasn't able to take care of. With those issues out of the way, I'd say this section is now as good as the last two. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prelude#Liniers government: Again, a few minor grammatical errors that I corrected, but that was the only thing wrong with the section. Everything else about it; the image and its caption, the information and sourcing, all checks out. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prelude#Cisneros government: Much the same as before. I think my sectional analysis has now reached a stage where that's all I really have to say about each section I review, unless I witness a stronger issue than grammar somewhere in the content. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May week#introductory paragraph: I didn't see anything obviously wrong here, although the heading is a bit of a bother for me. The opening line "The May Week" has "Week" capitalized, whereas in the heading it doesn't. Does the capitalization go either way, is it supposed to be capitalized, or is it not? :/ Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Capitalized, as it's used as a name Cambalachero (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May week#Friday, May 18 and Saturday, May 19: Pretty much the same as the rest of the sections so far. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination needs more reviews. All things said so far have been adressed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ from Noleander (prose only)

Better word: " was the disintegration of the territories ..." - word "disintegration" needs to be defined/explained here. Some readers mat think it means extermination. Or replace it with a more precise word that is not as ambiguous.
Need time context: "The Council of Regency, the Royal Audiencia of Buenos Aires and the peninsulars opposed the new situation.[156] The Royal Audiencia secretly ..." - What day/week is this happening? in general, every section beginning should mention a date.
Better word: "The rioters were led ..." - Rioters may not be right, since that implies violence, vandalism, out-of-doors. Maybe protestors? Or demonstrators?
Better word: " on whether this was genuine or not." "Sincere" may be better than genuine.
"The May Revolution declared loyalty to Ferdinand VII of Spain." - Is the "May Revolution" an person/group or an event? Only persons/groups can declare loyalty.
Link: need to link first occurrence of word "junta" by itself.
Web site: I dont think the web site belongs in the InfoBox. I'd move it to the "External LInks" section. A URL in the infoBox should only be used for the official site of the organization/company, which in this case, there is none.
Leaning towards support: the article appears very detailed & comprehensive; and the prose is generally very good. I'm not at all familiar with the topic, but it does not seem to have any POV issues. It would be nice if a Latin American historian could give a vote of confidence.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I mentioned in the first paragraph of the "Aftermath" section that the secret swore of allegiance and exile took place a moth later, but have in mind that the section is a summary of events that took place in a period of several years after the event itself of the article (as it would be expected from an "Aftermath" section). If I mentioned the dates of everything in there, it would double the section size and become harder to read. It is correct that "rioter" implies more violence than "demonstrator", but that's precisely why I used the word. When we say "demonstrators" we don't think in armed men or in people that actually overrun the buildings next to the protest, so the word may give a ligther idea of the situation than it really was. I agree that the link seemed somewhat out of place in an infobox about a historical event, but there's a field for it, and I thought I had to fill it; I moved it to the external links. Thanks for the review Cambalachero (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Support, based on review of prose only. I have not validated image rights (although they all seem rather old, so that should be a non-issue); nor spot-checked any sources. Nor can I vouch for the factual accuracy of the content. --Noleander (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination needs more reviews. All things said so far have been adressed. Cambalachero (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. You should try and find someone to copyedit this article thoroughly. The prose is sometimes clumsy; there are grammatical and MOS errors. I'd offer to help, but I'm not the greatest writer myself and, above all, I don't have the time right now. Here are some examples for what I mean:

"May Week" in the lede should be italicized and not in quotation marks, cabildo should be italicized. May Pyramid and Plaza de Mayo should not be italicized.
The important words in the name of the painting should be capitalized per MOSCAPS.
"Spanish peoples" should be "Spanish people" or "Spaniards".
"Liberal ideas spread through the Atlantic Revolutions across most of the Western world, and expanded to new and varied ideas thanks to the national variations of the Age of Enlightenment" I don't understand that sentence.
"Spain forbade its American colonies to trade with other nations or foreign colonies, and imposed itself as the only buyer and vendor for their international trade" The second half of that sentence is just repeating the content of the first half.
The passive voice is used excessively.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to mention this in my original remarks. Despite those problems, I think the article has real potential and I appreciate the effort you've put into it. I hope you are able to find a copyeditor so I can strike out my oppose.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The first reason to why I oppose this article is due to its prose, which has several issues, as Carabinieri warned above. The second reason is regarding the reliability of the text. Carlotism is given as an idea to make Carlota Joaquina the regent of Spain's colonies in South America and that is failed because of her desire to rule as an absolute ruler and the May revolutionaries' desire for a constitutional government. There is no mention of Prince Don Carlos of Bourbon, the only male dynasty of the House of Burbon in South America, who was then living in Brazil. He was the person whom the Revolutionaries wished to rule as a constitutional monarch and Carlota wanted to use him as her puppet to rule on through him. Besides, the major reason to why Carlota's schemes failed was because her husband, the later King Dom João VI of Portugal, did everything to prevent her from succeed. He wanted to take advantage of the chaos in the Hispanic American colonies to acquire more territory for Brazil, which led to the invasion of present-day Uruguay in 1811 and later in 1816, leading for its annexation as a province named Cisplatina. I can't even believe that nothing of this is told on this article, and can be easily found (albeit with contraditory views) on several English written books: Dom Pedro: The Struggle for Liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798-1834, as well as in Carlota Joaquina, Queen of Portugal, or in Tropical Versailles: Empire, Monarchy, and the Portuguese Royal Court in Rio, and in Empire Adrift. Not only that, but I wonder why almost no book written in English has been used, relying solely on Spanish written books which can not even be found at Google books, for example. If the May Revolution is regarded as the "Independence of Argentina" and must be certainly one of, if not the most important moment on Argentine history, there are certainly many, many books written in English that could have been used here. And why they weren't, then? If I found glaring omissions with a quick look, I wonder how many others, perhaps even mistakes, I might find if I read a book in English about the subject? --Lecen (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Of course there's much more to the carlotist project than what is mentioned here, same as with the American or French revolutions. They are described in summary style: they influenced the topic of the article, but just that, they are not the topic, and going into further detail would make the article go off-topic. Besides, it's really strange that Lecen rejects a wording that he proposed himself at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive2. As for the books used, I don't know if they are available at Google books or not, because I got them the old fashioned way: at the bookstore. I searched for books in English on the topic, but did not find any that go into the level of detail I found in real-life books. WP:VER says: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." Cambalachero (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - after over one month, there is no clear consensus to promote this article and the FAC seems to have stagnated. I think it would be benefit from archiving at this stage. Graham Colm (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.