Talk:1936 Naval Revolt/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 22:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The review has commenced.

1. It is well-written.

It looks like it may be able to be expanded more.
The first sentence under "Events" does not seem to fit well with what surrounds it. There is also nothing about what the "Organização Revolucionária da Armada" is.
You may want to get rid of the "stub" marking before nominating the article.

2. It is verifiable with no original research.

This is atrocious. There is not a single in-line citation. Seeing what I now see upsets me because someone did not take the time to learn about Wikipedia's most basic referencing guidelines. I don't understand how someone could even consider passing this article until there are inline citations.

3. Broad in its coverage.

This part looks fine. Once again there could be some expansion.

4. Neutral.

5. Stable.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images.

Is the infobox picture the only one that you can find? Maybe you could add some of notable participants.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

I will put the article on hold for 7 days. If more time is required, please contact me. Otherwise the review will fail. Hopefully, though, it may be passed. Aside from the referencing, there are no enormous issues. Display name 99 (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Display name 99, I think it is very generous not to have failed this article immediately, given its current rudimentary state. The article was assessed as Start class by Catlemur on February 17 of this year, which seems to me to be an accurate assessment of it now—indeed, it still has identical text and referencing. There are quite a few issues that were overlooked in the review above, from WP:LEAD violations (part of criterion 1), to not adequately broad in its coverage, which would include information about the political situation of Portugal at the time, what proportion of the Navy's ships sided with the revolt, which ships opposed them, and more on who the belligerents were. (Only two people are named in the article text, one of whom has neither given name nor rank.) There's even a statement "Salazar ordered the ships to be destroyed by gunfire", but nothing on whether the ships were actually destroyed. I hope the statement "there are no enormous issues" does not give the nominator false hope: this is very far from a Good Article, and will need a great deal of work indeed to become one, including a major expansion of text. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to butt in like this, but I feel that the article currently fails several B class criteria, so giving it GA should be out of the question. For example the references should be styled appropriately instead of being bare.--Catlemur (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset and Catlemur, thank you for your comments. I seriously considered failing it immediately (it was my original intention, if you look at the edit history of this review you'll see that I removed a sentence at the top declaring my intentions to do so), mainly because of the referencing, but was hesitant to either immediately fail or pass it because of my previous experiences with being too hasty to fail/pass GA nominees, and I did not want a repeat. I hope that you, BlueMoonset, will understand that somewhat. Catlemur, I mentioned the referencing, and as I stated I was shocked to find a GA nominee without a single in-line citation of any sort. I thank BlueMoonset for pointing out additional issues. After having examined the article again, and taken into account what you have both said, I have decided that this article is too far from GA status to be considered at this time. I therefore have decided to fail the article. I recommend that Jp16103 renominate it only after significant improvements have been made in the areas mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure if Im allowed to comment on here, but I wanted to thank you all for your input. It will be invaluable going forward. JP16103 20:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JP16103, you are absolutely allowed to comment on here. That's the whole point of a review page-to allow the nominator and a reviewer to communicate with each other on how to best improve the article. I want to thank you for your work on the article and hope that you are able to renominate it after making the necessary improvements. (One last question: Why do you now appear to have two accounts, one with a non-capital p and the other with a capital p? Display name 99 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99, Jp16103 still only has the one account, with the lowercase "p", but modified the sig to display an uppercase "P" in the above comment while still linking to the original account name. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to drop by the MILHIST Wikiproject. It has an Academy page where you can learn how to improve the quality of the content you create. Peer reviewed assessment is done here, there is also a guide] on bringing your article to B class. I also failed my first Good Article nomination so I can understand how you feel.--Catlemur (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for help with sourcing, you can see WP:Citing sources. Display name 99 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]