Talk:Venezuelan crisis of 1895

Venezuelan crisis of 1895 has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

South America: Guyana / Venezuela High‑importance

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Guyana (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Venezuela (assessed as High-importance).

International relations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Empire Mid‑importance

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Start of the special relationship?[edit]

I was under the impression that some scholars believe this crisis to be the start of the British-American "Special Relationship". That is not reflected in the article though. Is there anything in the literature about this? --Airborne84 (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't come across any references to the Special Relationship in writing the article, but in writing a history of that, this episode would be significant. I can certainly see why it's quite likely that some think it's the start. Rd232 ^talk 08:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only U.S. / British point of view?[edit]

This article is good in general, but still has some mistakes and inaccuracies. I think the most important problem here is that virtually no sources in Spanish have been used. In order to clarify a matter like this, it's essencial to take into account the spanish/venezuelan point of view by considering what their diplomats and experts have said. The article is mainly based in opinions and research made by British or U.S. authors, thus it seems to tackle the problem only with a bilateral perspective, which leads to serious failures. For instance, the article states that Venezuela abided by the arbitral award, and this is not true in fact, because although Venezuela sent commissioners in order to verify the process of placing the milestones, it rejected the outcome of the award from the beginning. --Hiddendaemian (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Venezuela Crisis of 1895/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reviewing this article -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section by section review[edit]

Images

Its just a stylistic choice, but maybe the article would look a little better if the images were not all on one side of the page.
~~Fix the image of the House resolution so its a bit more readable. Maybe just use the first page to enlarge it.~~

Lead

Well done, no problems here.

Background *The statement about gold prospectors should be removed unless more context is provided.

Add a bit more history of the Monroe Doctrine up to this point. After this section (taking the article primae faciae, disregarding my knowledge of the Doctrine), a reader is left asking to what extent was the doctrine enforced in the late 1800s?

Crisis

You must have a cite for the vote in Congress being unanimous. Usually if these tags remain in the article, it qualifies to quick-fail the article, but I am sure here you can find a source for this.

Need a cite for "Gresham thought the demands harsh"

As to the letter being 12000 words - what is the point of that? Was it an agressive letter?

Arbitration

Last sentence in the first paragraph is a bit confusing. Clarify.

Change 'total reached 23 volumes' to 'and the total reaching 23 volumes of evidence and testimony' or something to that effect.

Outcome

Include some critical analysis, if any, of the decision to provide more context.

Aftermath

There is nothing here about the immediate aftermath. Just stuff in the 1940s. While you need to keep that, also include the reactions of all sides to the decision of the Arbitrators.

Concluding Thoughts

Good article, but needs some changes and additions. If these are completed within 7 days, I will go through the checklist for promotion. If not, then this will fail review. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that. One quick fix I've done is to crop the HR252 image; unfortunately I struggled quite a bit with the placement of the images and couldn't do any better than how it is now (all right-aligned), which isn't ideal. Alternatives just look worse - to me, anyway. I hope I'll have time to deal with the other issues, but RL constraints may not permit (and the passage of time since I was immersed in this material doesn't help any...). Thanks again. Rd232 ^talk 22:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your situation. The timeframe can certainly be extended provided you are working in good faith to improve the article, which I believe you are. If you can't fix the image thing, that's cool - just a personal opinion and not a requirement. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, clarified the gold issue and clarified/cited the points raised re Crisis; and dropped the Arbitration sentence (can't source it now) and tweaked the "23 volumes" bit. Rd232 ^talk 23:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can just <s></s> (strikethrough) the issues you have resolved, on the list I wrote above. This will make it a bit easier to follow. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Rd232 ^talk 01:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're about done...yes? - Lord Roem (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been through it again, made a couple of additions and tweaks. If you could just take a quick look at those, I think we're about done. Rd232 ^talk 18:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks all good. I'm moving to pass and promote the article. Great job! Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your valuable input. Rd232 ^talk 20:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

The existing link to Severo Mallet-Prevost is really to a promotional article about a law firm that he joined well after the time of his involvement in the arbitration. A link to something about the person would be far more interesting. Eclecticology (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– The adjectival form is more popular: see this Ngram. The lower case form is also more popular, although I don't mind if we keep a capital C in crisis. Srnec (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Tony (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA criteria issues[edit]

The article does not cite sources for all the content in the article, as required by the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 05:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]