Talk:Capture of Guam

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Capture of Guam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The sections should be split into smaller subsections to avoid the large blocks of text.
   2. "he was joined by three transport ships, the City of Peking, the City of Sydney, and the Australia..." - What were these ships transporting? Troops, I presume, but are there any numbers on how many of them and what kind of troops they were?
   3. Items should not be linked to more than two times in an article. Some links (such as Guam and the Charleston) appear too many times and should be removed. Dates should also not be linked.
   4. "As they were going below, Francisco Portusach sailed across the bow of the Charleston..." - This graph isn't written in a very professional format. The intermixed quotes and people interactions are not as relavent to the capture, anyway. See: WP:TONE
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet'

   1. The article relies almost entirely on one source. It will need to be more thoroughly referenced using the other book sources. Every specific date, quote, and number likely to be challenged should be cited. See: WP:MILMOS#CITE
   2. What makes ref #1 a reliable source? See: WP:MILMOS#SOURCES
   3. "Some thought the expedition was to hoist the American flag over the Caroline Islands and remain there until reinforcements arrived for a stronger descent upon Manila. Others guessed that the Charleston was sailing to some mysterious island of Spain, complete with impregnable fortifications, a formidable force of Spanish soldiers, and vast quantities of coal." - Both of these sentences need a ref.
   4. "...were shooting accurately enough to cause Captain Glass to smile pleasantly." - Also needs a ref.
   5. "The natives, seeing that the Spanish troops no longer had effective control over them..." - needs a ref
3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Not Yet

   1. The images should be dispersed throughout the article to avoid them being crammed into that small space. They should also be evenly distributed on the left and right sides of the page, again to make things look more even.
   2. The image captions should also relate more directly to the article.
7. Overall:

   On Hold while issues are dealt with. -—Ed!^(talk) 02:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

   It has been almost a month and the article has remained virtually untouched. Since there is a large backlog at GA, we can no longer wait for this article to be improved. It is being failed for GA criteria. Before it can be nominated again, these issues must be fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

People of Guam

I really don't like the term native being used on the article. They should be refered to as the people of Guam or as Guamanians. See Stand Ye Guamanians.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Result in infobox

The infobox says, "... the United States acquires its first Pacific Ocean territory" I think that this is technically incorrect. The capture of Guam gave the U.S. control over the island, but did not amount to annexation of the island as a U.S. Territory. At the time, the Hawaiian Islands were governed by the Provisional Government of Hawaii which was then lobbying for annexation by the United States. This government maintained power until the U.S. annexed Hawaiʻi on July 4, 1898. The U.S. dodn't acquire Guam until the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898 (or, arguably, not until ratification of the treaty by the U.S. Senate in February of 1899). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Un-encyclopedic tone

I must note that this article is written in an un-encyclopedic tone. Portions of it are more appropriate to a magazine article or other light reading (e.g., "the little whaleboat"), while some portions are almost worshipful, raising POV issues (e.g., the description of the Guamanian soldiers' happiness at surrendering). Can this be remedied? I got the "little". --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

These issues, and others (see the use of "native", etc.) make me suspect that significant portions of this article were taken from contemporary magazine articles or reports, possibly outright propaganda, which likely played up the U.S. side of events and made it look like the Guamanians ("little brown brother", anyone?) rejoiced in the change of colonial masters. This needs to be re-written to modern standards. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Brass beer checks?

I wonder whether the term "brass beer checks" used in the article is correct? I don't know what this means, and neither a search of Wikipedia nor Google have thus far been helpful. If this is correct, I suggest a cross reference or explanation. If it is not, it should be corrected.Bill (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)