Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Background of the Spanish Civil War

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background of the Spanish Civil War edit

Nominator(s): Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)


The article passed a GA nomination a few weeks ago, and A Class seemed like a natural progression. Whilst prose quality was brought up as an issue then (and rectified suitably), things like coverage, scope and referencing were stronger areas which lead me to some confidence about the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentsSupport
    • 1. No dabs [1] and external links check out [2] (no action required).
    • 2. Images lack alt text, although this is not a requirement of ACR you might consider adding it (no action required).
    • 3. The Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [3] (no action required).
    • 4. The citation checking tool reveals one error ("preston44" - Multiple references are using the same name).
    • 5. The first sentence of the lead seems problematic grammatically, specifically I think it would work better using past tense. "The background of the Spanish Civil War is the series of events leading up to Spain's civil war (also known as "The Crusade", the "Fourth Carlist War", "The Rebellion" and "The Uprising") which began in Spain on 17 July 1936." This might be reworded like this instead: "The background of the Spanish Civil War included a series of events leading up to Spain's civil war (also known as "The Crusade", the "Fourth Carlist War", "The Rebellion" and "The Uprising") which began in Spain on 17 July 1936." Also I would consider merging the first and second paragraphs together as a single sentence really isn't a paragraph IMO.
    • 6. The final paragraph of the lead could be improved. Specifically these two stubby sentences could probably be reworked into a single sentence. "Tensions rose in the period before the start of the civil war. The period between 1934 and 1936 is called the "black two years". As a suggestion consider something like this: "Tensions rose in the years before the start of the civil war, and the period between 1934 and 1936 became known as the "black two years"."
    • 7. I'm not sure that the 2nd level headings you have chosen are appropriate under WP:HEADING, namely "During the constitutional monarchy" and "During the Second Republic", specifically "During the". You might consider altering them to "Constitutional monarchy" and "Second Republic".
    • 8. The wikilink to General Prim is incorrect. Rank and name should not be combined in a wikilink and the full name should be used at first instance per WP:SURNAME. For instance this should be General Juan Prim.
    • 9. "The UGT went from 8,000 members..." might work better as "The UGT grew from 8,000 members..."
    • 10. In places the language becomes a little strong IMO, for instance "and other flagrant breaches" and "acted horrifically". This might unintentionally create the impression of a POV so you might consider rewording them (and looking for others) (criteria A2).
    • 11. Some of the images lack detail in the descriptions which make it difficult to confirm if they are PD. Specifically: File:Amadeo king of Spain.jpg (lacks details like dates and author) and File:Primo-de-rivera.JPG (lacking image info altogether).
    • 12. "Beevor, Antony (1982). The Spanish Civil War. London: Penguin. OCLC 9971204." is listed in the Sources section, without being used in any inline citations. Unless you use it for an inline citation it should be removed from the Sources section to a "Further reading" section per WP:CITESHORT.
    • 13. Some inconsistency in the presentation of citations. Specifically "Fraser. pp. 38–39", "Lannon. p. 181" and "Vincent, p.122" which all lack the date of publishing, which you seem to use in the other citations. As such this should probably be "Fraser (1979). pp. 38–39" etc.
    • 14. The majority of references seem to be from just two sources, which to me seems to be a little limited for such an important topic. I am not an expert on this topic but I think you may need to broaden your research base in order to more accurately reflect the body of published literature available (criteria A1).
    • 15. Overall, I actually found this article to be quite well written, engaging and interesting. However, there are a number of issues that need to be resolved before it can be promoted. Well done so far and I'm happy to discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2, 3: no action required. 4, fixed. 5, changed; 6, changed (but not exactly how you had it). 7, 8, 9: changed. (Working on the others.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10: toned done the first, and I've added an additional reference to the second. The article does provide some refernced basis for the word "horrifically" since it mentions the wholesale killing of women and children. I don't have Preston on me, but I've added a ref from Beevor, who says "looting, rape and the execution of prisoners... a savage repression". I'll keep a lookout for further instances.
11: I've replaced the pictures with similar ones with clearer licensing. 12: Since I've used Beevor, I replaced it with the edition I have. (Situation dealt with.) 13: I've changed.
On 14, well, I can't deny that the article is heavy on two sources. However, 10% of citations are to other works, and the sources themselves are from definitive authors (Paul Preston and Hugh Thomas who would be ashamed to have omitted something. I can [double] reference some of the article to Beevor, but it seems like it would be for the sake of it. What do you think?
Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some further comments:
    • Happy with your changes to date and overall most of my points have now been dealt with.
    • I think you should work Beevor in to the text a bit more to be honest. As I said above I'm no expert on the literature in this area so I'm happy with your explaination that Preston and Thomas are the key works in the area, however I think you will find this may become an issue at FA. Beevor seems like it may also be an important work on the topic so if that can be used to expand your research base then I think it may be the way forward.
    • IMO you should consider your lead further. I made the point above but I'm not sure if you saw it as it was tucked in amoung a heap of other comments. Specifically the first paragraph is a single sentence which in my opinion does not work well. (I'm not going to oppose on the basis of this though).
    • And do you have a reference for this comment: "This led to the military coup of July that started the Spanish Civil War." Seems like an important assertion which probably should be referenced. Anotherclown (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added a lot more Beevor (now referenced 17 times out of 120 references) which means Preston and Hughes are about 75%, Beevor 15% and others 10%. I've done the others: whilst I continue to believe that a 1 line paragraph was a necessary evil, I've merged it anyway. I've changed that last sentence. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All issues have been resolved as far as I can see. Happy to add my support. Well done and thank you for your patience! Anotherclown (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
  • Please reduce the number of sub-headings under 'References', as 'tis cluttering up the TOC. You could consider creating bolded headings with a semicolon (just as I've done above).
  • Ref 43 needs a page number
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher information for journal articles
  • Be consistent in whether you write "Vol." before volume numbers. Eisfbnore • talk 04:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've acted on the first two and last points. I've got to poke around the third because the only journal where the publisher is listed is because of a slightly strange setup where the whole thing is online, so there is one more actor. I'll see how easily publisher information on the other two is available. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've done that and there appears to be no useful publisher for the other two works. Removing the group that put the document online in the first instance would be one option, but this seems unfavourable, even in the name of consistency. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks, but there are no major issues that I can see. Good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The background of the Spanish Civil War included a series of events leading up to Spain's civil war": The lead should be tighter than this, particularly the first sentence of the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I like the dense style of for instance the first paragraph, but many readers will want this to be a little less dense, with more explanation and context. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We had real trouble cutting it down enough to be a reasonable length which providing enough of the information to be a meaningful summary. As regards to the first sentence, I agree it's not perfect and would welcome any thoughts on changing it because a better alternative does not spring to mind. Perhaps if the phrase "background of the Spanish Civil War" was dropped, then there might be an alternative? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a suggestion now; I might think of something at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, the text below the lead is still dense but more leisurely; I like it.
  • "had 'ceased to be Catholic'; although": If you're headed to FAC, use double quotes per WP:MOS#Quotation marks.
  • The writing is good enough to survive at FAC; see you there I hope. It looks like you don't need my support to pass A-class so I'll stop here. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dank. I don't know when it'll go to FAC, probably after Nyon Conference since I found my last FAC so stressful. I'll act on those things if I get a chance. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Background_of_the_Spanish_Civil_War&oldid=1141873623"