View text source at Wikipedia


Talk:Alt Llobregat insurrection

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Alt Llobregat insurrection/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 12:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 03:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Image review

Provided reference for the map; removed the photo of Batet, as its US public domain status isn't certain. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I tend to reference specific chapters to make verification a bit easier, but I can remove them if they're distracting. Deleted publication place for Paz. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the texts verifying the following sentences:

Comments

  • Removed reference to the pact; Paz doesn't go into why they thought it broke the pact, and it's really not so important to the story of the insurrection.
  • Neutralised non-quoted mentions of bourgeoisie.
  • Capitalised.
  • Clarified to "While the government ratified the constitution"
  • Changed to "workers proclaimed".
  • Clarified to "Civil Guards".
  • Introduced.
  • Introduced.
  • Clarified.
  • Introduced.
  • Cut repetition of introduction.
  • Rearranged sentence.
  • Resolved contradiction.
  • No, there was no sign of foreign involvement. This is just something that Azaña claimed in order to justify its suppression.
  • Introduced.
  • Introduced.
  • Cut repetition.
  • Cut everything after the January 1933 insurrection, as it over-contextualises the aftermath. This alone accounted for about 10-15%.
--Grnrchst (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I again enjoyed reviewing your article. Borsoka (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]

  • Source: Casanova, Julián (2005). Preston, Paul (ed.). Anarchism, the Republic and Civil War in Spain: 1931–1939. Translated by Dowling, Andrew; Pollok, Graham. Routledge. pp. 64–65. ISBN 0-415-32095-X.
Improved to Good Article status by Grnrchst (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 49 past nominations.

Grnrchst (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Really nice work here. Newly promoted GA, looks good. AGF on the sources for the hooks. Either of the hooks should work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]