Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/May Revolution/archive1

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 / no consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

May Revolution

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it's ready. It's already a good article, and I have referenced all (or almost all) sentences and check the MOS point by point. Cambalachero (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Great to see an article on this. It's a long piece, so I may take a couple of stabs at the comments. Here goes...

• "The May Revolution was a direct reaction to Spain's Peninsular War of the previous two years..." I agree with this in the lead; when you get into the "causes" sections, however, the Peninsular War is buried halfway through the last paragraph of the "international section" - I think you could usefully make this all much more prominent, in keeping with the lead. You also don't actually say in the main text that the Revolution was a direct reaction to the war
• "Between 1775 and 1783, the Thirteen Colonies waged the American Revolutionary War against their former rulers" - the Argentinians may have perceived this to be the case, but this version of events wouldn't be recognised by most modern historians of the conflict: the Revolutionary War is often seen as much more of a civil conflict between partisan American factions than a simple revolution. Might be worth emphasising that this was the perception, not a factual description of the conflict.
• "The end of the notion of the divine right of kings gave a justification for republics in France and the United States to replace monarchies. It also gave rise to constitutional monarchies, for example in Great Britain." - this bit isn't referenced.
• The British invasions of the Río de la Plata article is a bit less certain about the British motivation here than this article; it suggests that "it was not agreed whenever Britain should turn those cities into British colonies, or promote their emancipation under British protection", and cites some alternative sources. Might be worth ironing this difference out.
• "This situation damaged the viceroyalty, as Spain's economy was not powerful enough to accommodate the supply of goods coming from the colonies, causing economic shortages and recession." - I didn't quite understand why this would be the case: it might be worth explaining further.
• "Events developed at a slower pace than in the United States independence movement. This was in part because the entire educational system in Spanish America was controlled by the clergy, leading the population to hold the same conservative ideas and follow the same customs as in Spain." How reliable is the source for this? I only ask because he's writing from 1926 and this seems quite a strong anti-clerical argument.
• "There was no aid from Spain during either invasion." - would there have been enough time for a message to have got to Spain and for aid to have been sent?
• "they wanted to prevent Spain from splitting into many kingdoms" - "many" or "several"? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• "an open cabildo (an extraordinary meeting of vecinos) " - although vecinos is linked, it forces the reader to leave the article to work out what this all means - it would be worth expanding slightly in the main text.
• "legitimacy of local authorities in Upper Peru as well" - what does "local authorities" mean in this context? I ask because in the UK this would mean town and city governance (i.e. quite a low level)
• " Saavedra, Paso, Chiclana, Vieytes, Balcarce, Castelli, Larrea, Guido, Viamonte, Moreno and Sáenz" - I wasn't sure who these people were at this point in the text.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Done. However, I think the order of the "Causes" is read more naturally in the current order, because it's the order in which things were taking place. American Revolution, French Revolution, Industrial revolution, British invasions, Peninsular War. The significance of the Peninsular War over the other causes is seen in the narration of the events: everything else is context and influences, but the "casus belli" that actually set everything in motion was the arrival of the news of the fall of Seville. Once reading that part, the reader will understand why the May Revolution is a direct consequence of the Peninsular War.
  • As for the clergy, that info is correct: yes, the clergy managed the education in conservative principles, and yes, ideas evolved slower than in North America. Notice that this happened 40 years after the American revolution, it started because of events between Spain and a third party (not between Spain and its own colonies, as the Tea act; which means that without the Peninsular War all this could have been delayed even more), and even in the following years thee were still monarchist criollos, who thought to establish a local monarchy rather than a republic. The info is also for the benefit of US readers: it is likely that they never heard anything about the people or events described here, but as there is a broad similarity to the American Revolution (patriots, loyalists, colonies in the Americas, a mother country in Europe) they may draw a comparison. Which may be good as a start, but in history all comparisons must be taken with care.
  • The lack of help from Spain is not a recrimination, just a cause of further consequences. It is because of the lack of such help, and the double victory against Britain with just local forces led by criollos, that they achieved this umprecedented political and military influence. If Spain managed to bring reinforcements in time, and liberate Buenos Aires with their regular forces, the city would have been liberated, but the criollos would stay down in the social hierarchy, and the May Revolution would have not taken place, or take place in a different manner.
  • Everything else has been fixed as requested Cambalachero (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Currently Fails A Class criteria, some sourcing quality concerns, one instance of clearly out of date research and theory, some indication of original research from primary sources The rest is the normal citation fixits; I haven't done a detailed check that the bibliography and citation list match each other because I assume some changes will happen as a result of the more fundamental criticisms being discussed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • General:
    • Your use of "Actas capitulares" indicates and demonstrates the proper use of primary sources in a history article. Few editors manage this. I wish to congratulate you directly. If you have difficulty on this point, please rely on me at FAC. You also cite and use a primary source well at fn.213.
    • On the otherhand, your use of Belgrano, Manuel; Felipe Pigna (2009) (in Spanish). Manuel Belgrano: Autobiografía y escritos económicos. Buenos Aires: Planeta. ISBN 978-950-043189-7. looks suspect.
  • Bibliography:
    • Refer to WP:MILMOS#SOURCES regarding appropriate sourcing quality to meet this project's standards. If you have further questions, WP:HISTRS can expand your understanding of sourcing expectations in a field covered by academic history.
    • Your Locations are inconsistent. "Wilmington:" ?? Where?? Either follow one of three rules: No State/Country locations (I get sad); The "Well Known Publishing City Rule" where London, New York, Capital Cities, etc do not need their state or country located, but everything else does; or, State/Countries for everything. Remember: there's no such thing as England in this sense.
    • What makes this primary source adequately reliable for an A-Class article? What makes the interpretations of this source for fact and motivation not original research? Belgrano, Manuel; Felipe Pigna (2009) (in Spanish). Manuel Belgrano: Autobiografía y escritos económicos. Buenos Aires: Planeta. ISBN 978-950-043189-7.
    • Why are we using a historia minima? Dómina, Esteban (2003) (in Spanish). Historia mínima de Córdoba.
    • Why are we using a government website not authored by a historian? "Semana de Mayo" (in spanish). Efemérides Culturales Argentinas.
    • Fix formatting. (Magazine articles take this format "Article title" Magazine title, if you're using templates cite journal |title=Article title |journal=magazine). This source is of adequate quality as it is an interview with a historian regarding the need for historical revisionism (the good, academic one). Fonrouge (2009) (in Spanish). Galasso, Norberto; Pigna, Felipe (November 2009). El deber de reescribir la historia. Interview with Juan Manuel Fonrouge. 2010 (magazine). Buenos Aires.
    • This country doesn't exist, "Great Britain". Cite location as the United Kingdom
    • Is this a post-graduate textbook, or an undergraduate/schools textbook: Historia contemporánea de América Latina?; Los mitos de la historia argentina (26 ed.).
    • Local governments' advertising websites are not appropriate sources for history articles, http://www.mimercedes.com.ar/masnotas.php?ampliar=11468
    • Whom? "New York: Order of the trustees." you actually mean, "Hispanic Society of America" as the publisher. Did you read a full copy of this work, or a snippet view?
    • Occasionally we non-Spanish speakers enjoy a courtesy translation of book titles, chapter titles or journal article titles, etc. This can be supplied with the |trans_title= parameter. Of course this is voluntary and only a matter of courtesy not obligation.
  • References:
    • Fix immediately: fn66 ^ Efemérides Culturales Argentinas.[Full citation needed]
    • fn105 "Actas capitulares..." surely this should be within quotes, like so, ""Actas capitulares..."" so as to duplicate the title from the bibliography, no?
    • You are not seriously citing this theoretical claim, "The end of the notion of the divine right of kings gave a justification for republics in France and the United States to replace monarchies. It also gave rise to constitutional monarchies, for example in Great Britain." to a work published in 1902? We live in an age where post-colonial and transnational history is the cutting edge; where Wallenstein's world systems theory has a deep and abiding effect on history. Where most history is Marxist, Marxian or post-Marxist in its acceptance of the role of material reality in driving ideas and social organisations. This is simply out of date research.
    • Formatting error in wikicode? fn.5 "Luna, "...Belgrano,"
    • Short titles, p.s and pp.s are beautiful. Short titles are excellently chosen.
    • Pigna, p. 234; Pigna, p. 236. (fn.114, fn.116). Were these quotes drawn out of a narrative in a high quality scholarly source, or were they from sources included in a source section / reader section of a textbook? If the HQRS narrative cited the source, we need to cite their cite as well as citing them, "He ran swiftly down the field" fn: James Johnson at Hackney Field 1814 speaking to a crowd of mendicants (NA 14.08998 Box 14), as cited in Foo, Mendicants, p. 13. (Incidentally, you do this perfectly at fn213)
    • How do I tell this work, "Luna, Independencia...," from this work, "Luna, ...independencia,"? Maybe choose a different distinguishing short title?

Done I have fixed the pointed thing, and replaced the problematic references. The one from Mercedes had in fact been replaced some time ago, but I forgot to took it out from the list. The book by Esteban Dómina is used for the reference 186, and details the perspective of the other Argentine cities at the time, a topic that is often overlooked by most books. So, it's not useful for the whole topic, but it's useful for a related piece of information at a section. Everything adds. As for Belgrano, when a book cites another book, I like to check as well that other book used as reference and cite it if possible. So, removing the autobiography as a reference does not change anything, I simply go back to the book that cited it in the first place, and that's it. Cambalachero (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

---

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.