Talk:Battle of Toro/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 19:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am going to fail this as I feel it does not meet the basic requirements of a good article.
- There should be no references in the lead, per WP:LEAD as it acts as a summary for the entire article, so the notion is it will be developed below and cited, where appropriate. In this case, there are excessive references, just to prove one statement.
- The lead at present does not summarise the article. Why is António M. Serrano's quote doing in the lead?
- Several bits are in bold which should not be, for more information see MOS:BOLD.
- One lined sentences are incorrectly placed as sole paragraphs.
- Headings should not be referenced
- Unsourced statements "Apparently the Portuguese captains had good reasons..."
- Image caption of Prince John far too long
I would advise you to have a look at a model article, similar to this one for ideas and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style because it needs to be wikified. Ideally you should then take this to WP:PR to iron out issues. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
Reviewer: Iberic (talk · contribs) 19:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The article battle of Toro is a high quality work, very well sourced and written in a balanced way:
- It’s completely impartial since uses a large amount of contemporaneous sources from both sides and also modern ones.
- It’s very complete, covering the subject from all perspectives.
- It’s objective.
- It’s easy to read (in spite of its size) since the themes are presented in a very interesting way, never losing the “big picture”.
- It’s verifiable as its many citations are not only elucidative but also online verifiable.
- However, there could be some gap between the content level (what is said) and the form level (how it is said). This last one can be improved, but no need of drama.