Talk:Mariano Moreno

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Scampioen (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

You've done a really nice job researching and writing the article, but i feel the first half needs more attention on the style and grammar.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   -Minor mistakes in the heading: "college studies of law at .. University": no need to add college since you say he went to a university.; "Allied with Gregorio Funes, he expanded..": Better make it more clear that "he" is actually the president and not Moreno; "His brother felt that he was poisoned": maybe believed is better here?;

-Overall, i think the article needs a cleanup of prose: i feel some sentences just don't work (like "Mariano Moreno would have been part of the new Junta. They were defeated ..." : The sentence of him being a part of the new junta stands on its own and doesn't really fit into the narrative.). The flow of the first half of the article isn't the best and may need some cleanup. However, the flow of the article improves a lot with the section 'death' and onwards.

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   -"becoming a prominent lawyer for the Cabildo. Unlike most other criollos, he rejected the Carlotist project": it's unclear what Cabildo, criollos and Carlotist are without following the links. Maybe add a short description of what these are. This returns in the article itself: Cabildo and criollos are mentioned without a short description of what they are.

-In the part of the operations plan you change from past to present tense quite often. I guess it's better kept al in the past tense?

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There are no citations in the header.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images seem to be ok, but i'm no expert on the subject.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass

   I'm gonna put this on hold for 2 weeks you to improve the style a bit. Very nice work on this however!

On a different note, this is my first review. If anyone else more experienced wants to add something or feels that i have made a mistake, don't hesitate to do so.

Done I have clarified the meanings of some things that may be obscure to non-argentine readers. In others, such as military conflicts, military units, books, etc; the information provided should be enough. That Britain invaded Buenos Aires and Montevideo, or that "The Social Contract" is a book, is enough information, as this is the biography of a specific man, and the article must stay focused in it; further details such as why was there such military conflict or what did the book talk about, should be check at the respective articles. I have also checked the uses of "he", and fied those that may be confusing. As for the header, it's an accepted use that the lead, which is a summary of the article, does not need references for things that are detailed and referenced later. The only references a lead may need would be in quotes, statistics, when BLP may be involved, or other such specific caases Cambalachero (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will re-read the article and see if it passes. Scampioen (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes are satisfactory to me, i'll pass the article as good. Nice work Scampioen (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Cambalachero (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

There are way too many {{citation needed}} tags on this article for it to meet GA requirements. Cambalachero, I see you nominated this 11 years ago and you are still active. Is that something that you could possibly look into? Much appreciated. Schwede66 05:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Mariano Moreno

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisting per below, but noting that it should be a relatively easy return to GA status if someone wants to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Article has 10 citation needed tags. Looks good overall, so should be relatively easy to save for somebody knowledgeable. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not allowed to edit this article anymore (long story). Ask for someone else to try to manage this nomination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina. If nobody picks it up, pretend the original nominator has left Wikipedia. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.