Talk:Falkland Islands/GA1

GA Review

Latest comment: 11 years ago32 comments4 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 11:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll be glad to take this review. Let me start by commending everyone involved in this one. I've been reading the recent talk page discussions, and I'm impressed with how well editors are collaborating on what could have been a much more acrimonious discussion. I hope that can set the tone for this review as well.

So my impression is that the article is stable, and the parties involved feel that any neutrality issues have been resolved; if I'm wrong here, please let me know. With that as a starting point, I'll begin my own review. I'll start with a readthrough for prose/clarity/neutrality issues, and then later do a source and image review. I hope to get through the former today, but it could be any time in the next 1-3 days. Thanks to everybody who's worked to bring the article to this point! I'll look forward to reviewing it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think several of the editors (myself included) have, with the passage of time, become more adept at conducting fruitful discussions (but, if you look at the talk page history, the expected problems should be plenty).

My hope is that this GA review can eliminate any outstanding neutrality issues (if any such are raised).

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, Marshal, here are some initial comments for you. This looks quite good so far--it seems neutral at first glance, the prose is strong, the sourcing is clear and seems to all be to reliable places. I made some tweaks as I went, most notably to reduce the link density of the article per WP:OVERLINK. This isn't a GA issue, though, and I'd encourage you revert me if you disagree. I also did some minor rewording for grammar, clarity, or in one case a minor redundancy ("flat plains terrain"). Issues I couldn't immediately fix are below:

"At present, ongoing disputes ..." -- it's a little confusing to have the quotation in this sentence cited to two sources; I'd think one would be enough here in any case.
"Land birds make up most of the Falklands' avifauna, followed by seabirds" -- after land birds, couldn't it be assumed that the remainder would be seabirds? It seems like there wouldn't be any other categories left. This might be rephrased.
"Unemployment is currently at a 4.1% rate" -- this should be tied to a specific time per WP:REALTIME
"Agriculture, primarily in the form of sheep farming and fishing, accounts for 95% of the Falkland Islands' gross domestic product, followed by industry and services at" -- this isn't a necessary point for GA, but these links seems a bit Easter Egg-y -- see WP:EGG.
"to attend higher education" -- this seems like an odd phrase to me, but perhaps this is a more common way to put it in British English (I'm American)?

Let me know your thoughts, and thanks again for your (and everybody else's!) work here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thank you.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Forgot to add--thanks for the fixes for the above; those points can be considered resolved. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

MarshalN20's good work deserves a better response that I'm able to provide now due to my time constraints, but I'm afraid I don't find the history section to be neutral. Some issues presented in my review were corrected but others remain, and there are problems that I haven't mentioned there. I believe it is very difficult to attain a fair amount of neutrality on controversial subjects with the WP process. Particularly when there are systemic biases, such as there is here due to the editors' mother tongues. Therefore, although I appreciate MarhalN20's efforts, I would find it inconvenient to suggest that an article like this is particularly reliable, as people could interpret from a GA qualification. At least, a badge on the controversial sections would be required, indicating that their narrative should be taken with a pinch of salt.

As a test, you may compare Gustafson's historical chapter with the same period as covered here. I think you will find his narrative to be pretty-much more "pro-Argentine". It would tell us something to find the article to be more "pro-British" than a book published by Oxford University... I think the same impression will result after comparing with Yale-expert Reisman, Oxfordian Deas, etc. Besides, the presence of P&P's pamphlet in the "Further Reading" list indicates a lack of proper scrutiny by itself.

I think MarshalN20 deserves credit for his efforts, and I promise to go on elaborating as my time permits. But please don't hurry a GA qualification, and consider the possibility that the WP process is not able to realize, on these topics, the quality that it has on other articles that are justly indicated as good, featured, etc. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, I don't intend to rush, and really appreciate your input. My first impression is that the Argentine position and British position both seem described at length, but I'm happy to listen to what you feel is being omitted. I'm not an expert in this area and will be reviewing sources as I go. That said, the review you link to above is quite long, and seems to mix minor points with larger ones. Could you, concretely and succinctly, give me the 2 or 3 most essential points you feel are being omitted/misrepresented? That'll give us a good starting point for discussion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Khazar2. I'm afraid that mentioning a few short omissions or inaccuracies can hardly represent the tendentiousness of the history section in its current state. Please read this comment that I made some weeks ago. It seems that many decisions that have to be made when attempting a historiographical summary were decided in a way that strongly favors one side of the sovereignty dispute. E.g., What will be mentioned? From which sources? How shall it be expressed? As silly as it may sound, I find bias in most sentences. In a few cases they are tangible omissions or inaccuracies. But in other, not less important, instances the bias is subtle. Yet, it builds up.

For example, the portrayal of Vernet's settlement is a particularly-troubling passage imo, as it is presented as almost inconsequential, thanks, in part, to an apparent disregard of Vernet's expressions in favor of Buenos Airean sovereignty (e.g., in a petition dated in 1823 where he requested the entitlement of Arguatí, who would defend Buenos Airean sovereignty there according to him, and in a memo he wrote in 1832) and the fact that his settlers and he responded to Buenos Airean grants that had a nature of acts of sovereignty, as recognized even by the British FO at the time. I offer some arguments here and there's more. I could start listing arguments yet another time here, but please see that part of the review first, and the RfC that is linked there if possible. Thanks again! -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey Andres, I'm happy to hear you out, but you will have to provide some specifics. You're making this a bit challenging by saying there's pervasive bias in almost every sentence of the article, but so subtle that you have almost no tangible examples to point to. I'm not sure if you might have just linked to the wrong comment in your link above, but it seems to be a long discourse on the nature of truth and Wikipedia rather than suggestions to improve this particular article. Could you be more specific above, for example, about the replacement text you'd like to make in the two sentences discussing Vernet, and what secondary sources you're drawing on to indicate that such a change is necessary? Are there other moments you can point to like this? I'd like to try to keep this on a level of constructive engagement, and what you've said so far is very difficult for me or any other editor here to respond to.

So far I don't see any neutrality issues based on what you've shown me, but I'm happy to give you a few more days to give an example or two. I have to be honest that I don't feel obligated to read dozens of pages of your past critiques on this when much of it has already been addressed, and editorial consensus appears to have rejected the rest; it seems more productive to focus on the current article than to rehash arguments about previous drafts. If you could just give me a brief explanation here of the most important remaining points, that would have much more impact on my review. Fair enough? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Khazar2! Sorry, although I did mean to link that comment, the other link, with the anchor "here", was meant to point to the fifth section of the review. I think you will find many tangible examples there (I can clarify on specific points if necessary) although stating my sources is pending. On Google Books you can access the chapter from Gustafson that I mentioned, and see that it is compatible with my narrative, particularly on some points that contradict the current article. Eg., starting here we read that Jewett (he spells it "Jewitt") was sent, he took possession, that Areguatí was appointed governor, that they attempted a settlement in 1824, etc. But I wouldn't rely on one sole source, however authoritative, for a controversial subject like this. On the header of the RfC that I mentioned before (wrongly linked too, sorry), I give several other reputed sources that cover this period and are available on the web.

I can offer sources and verbatim suggestions, but I wish we could use what I've already written and in which I've invested a lot of time. Take for example the RfC. I was dealing there with another palpable example, which is the inclusion of some dubious and unique statements by Cawkell that I don't see suitable for this and other articles. Initially, this article said, as the others still do, that Vernet sought British permission, which is one of the chauvinistic misinterpretations that I mention in my review. Now it has been improved to a more-accurate citation of Cawkell, but I don't think she should be quoted, particularly in a short summary such as this, for reasons given in the RfC and summarized in my review. If the arguments and sources I presented for the RfC discussion were disregarded, I don't think it was due to a worthy editorial consensus, and I wish those hours of work weren't wasted. Now that I fixed the links, maybe my previous points are clearer. I can provide further examples later. Thanks! -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andres, I think we're at the point where we simply to have to agree to disagree. Your review is almost 6,000 words long, and even a glance shows it to be out of date; it opens with a complaint, for example, that "Strong's is not believed to be the first landing but the first recorded landing," which appears to have been addressed. It's not realistic for you to ask me to consider this substantial document point-by-point, especially when you're asking me to read pages and pages of your other comments as well, some of it completely off-topic. Check out WP:WALLS--concision works far better in discussion like this than volume.

Since you highlighted it, I did review your Argentina in the Islands section, which lacks almost any reference to secondary sources, making it basically useless for our purposes here. Checking Laver, I do think the current article summarizes it fairly. As for your point that some other Argentine sources should be introduced to rebut the explicitly British assertion in this footnote, it's not NPOV to expect the Argentines to have the last word on every single point, particularly in a brief overview like this one; some British assertions may have to stand without rebuttal, just as some Argentine assertions do.

As for overturning the RfC result, I see no particular reason to believe that this RfC was flawed, and intend to abide by its result.

I do really appreciate your work on this article, and you shouldn't feel that writing your lengthy review has gone to waste, as some improvements and clarifications have clearly been made as a result of your research. But the points you raise appear to have already been settled by editorial consensus, and I'm therefore comfortable considering them resolved for this review. Marshal, you've been quiet so far--do you (or any other watchers of this article) have any thoughts on this? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have been following the discussion, but preferred to let Andres and you discuss it without interfering.

WP:SUMMARY is a good policy to follow in these kind of articles.

The impression I get from the above discussion is that more detail is sought on the text. My response would come from the quote, "perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

In other words, while there is plenty of further dates and facts that could be added in the history section, there really is no need for them in a summary of the history. On the other hand, much of the "take away" has been effectively done by following recommendations from several editors (such as Kahastok and Andres) to the point only the essential is covered (with further information available at History of the Falkland Islands).

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Khazar2: I'm sorry that you feel that I'm unfairly asking you to read too much, but this is not a simple subject that can be resolved in some minutes. As a sample, I pointed out the fifth section, which is quite succinct and where none of the issues has been dealt with, and gave you some bibliography that supports those facts, including a link, from a book published by Oxford U., where you have to read just very few paragraphs to find support for some corrections that I listed.

In the RfC I went to great extents to ground my words and answer every challenge, and the discussion ended when I stopped (or rather the others stopped but I didn't try to do anything about it) because, to be honest, I was rather disgusted by the poverty of that discussion. If we are to deem the issue closed because there was apparently a good consensus, then what is the purpose of having this discussion? Let's assume that all that was edited into the article is good for the same reason. Those arguments would also be wasted (because I meant the RfC when I referred to wasted work) if any invocation of them was considered WP:WALLS. If you want a summary, it's in the fifth section of the review.

I sort of feel trapped in a circle: Please explain - Please elaborate and answer to all of these challenges - Too long, start again.

@MarshalN20: I'm sorry that I didn't go on adding sources and am apparently delaying your plans that way, but to be honest I haven't been having any fun editing here for quite some time and I needed a holiday, besides requiring my time and energies for other things. I believe that you guess that what I wrote in my review has grounds even where I haven't provided multiple sources yet. If you compare that text to the current paragraphs in the article, there is much to change that doesn't imply adding length or detail. Some dubious annotations can be removed. I don't pretend us Argentines to have the last word and the current text is zillions of parsecs away from that. I simply pointed out—regarding the cite from Laver—that the responses, not only from Argentines but from international scholars, add to the grounds that subtract importance to that annotation. Likewise, there's no need to say that the islands where ungoverned when there was actually a governor who attempted a settlement, and with a few well-chosen words Vernet can be presented more accurately in regards to his relation with Buenos Aireas, and there's no need to put that inflammatory SPS pamphlet in the reading list (I can write some pointers about it if necessary), and etc.

I still believe that a good historiographical summary won't be achieved, and I wish that argument of mine wasn't considered off-topic, especially given the sensibilities raised by this subject. It would be great if we could place a suitable warning on that section. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andres, I did read the Gustafson you linked and I don't find it incompatible with the current draft of the article. I realize these aren't simple issues, but linking me to outdated points, or your general reflections on Wikipedia, doesn't move us closer to identifying areas for improvement. Anyway, so far as I understand your suggestions, it sounds like your biggest (possibly only?) remaining issue is that you're not happy with the result of the RfC. I will take a final look at that material in my source review, but it would take serious errors there for me to overrule the RfC process.

I'm sorry you've found Wikipedia to be frustrating recently, but you should realize that most of that is because you've been a single-purpose account for some time--you don't seem to have made any significant edits for years except to argue in a narrow and persistent way for one side of this sovereignty dispute, which invites skepticism about whether you're here to build an encyclopedia or simply to promote a point of view. I'd suggest that if you branch out into more varied areas, you may find your editing more rewarding.

I do appreciate your taking the time to comment here, though, and wish you luck with future editing! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Andres has mentioned a couple of times his dislike of what he calls the "inflammatory SPS pamphlet". I believe this issue can be addressed by removing the pamphlet (it doesn't seem to add anything important). However, aside from that, I believe matters are placed in a difficult stance when coming from a perspective that "a good historiographical summary won't be achieved" (based on that, Wikipedia could never have GA or FA class work on any controversial topic).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

On the topic of "enjoyment", I agree that Wikipedia can and does often get boring (specially when matters get unfairly decided due to editorial "alliances" and other faction-related work). Nonetheless, what helps me is remembering that Wikipedia is not about me (otherwise, I risk becoming a WP:DIVA); Wikipedia is about selflessly combating ignorance. Hence, I have found personal enjoyment writing about cuisine and music (especially when matters become annoying in other parts of the encyclopedia). Although I will never get an actual face-to-face "thank you" for my work, I am simply happy to look at the page view stats and see the people the article I contributed to has potentially educated. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Round 2

Okay, thanks to Marshal for resolving the initial prose points raised above, and thanks again to everybody who's worked to bring it to this point; it's clear that it's been a long haul. Over the next day or two I'll do a more thorough source review, particularly of the contentious history section. (I'll check images, too.) I'll also check some major encyclopedias for comparison to see how they summarize the dispute in a small space. Regardless of the pace at which I work, I'll leave this open until at least Nov 5 for any other concerned editors to chime in. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Khazar. I appreciate the dedication you're placing on the GA review. If nothing major comes up, I believe this will certainly help it in the FA review. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey, my pleasure. This has been interesting to learn in more detail about.

Anyway, comparison to other encyclopedias suggests that our history section is pretty standard in its narrative. If anything, I'd say our history section emphasizes Argentine colonization slightly more than other sources, but well within neutrality boundaries. (Cf. Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations, Encyclopedia Britannica, or Columbia Encyclopedia, or Encyclopedia of World Geography.) EB does point out that Argentine territorial claims were repeatedly asserted between the 1833 dispute and the Juan Perón phase. This might be worth adding a phrase or a sentence about; the article's current draft gives the impression that these claims were not pursued between 1833 and Peron. On the other hand, I don't think from comparison to the other articles that this is a mandatory addition, so I leave it up the regular editors here. I hope to do more source checks on Monday or Tuesday, and assuming no serious problems arise, this is probably ready to pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll think of a way to add it into the article, but will probably do so during the week. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

"UK Parliament. The Falkland Islands (Appeals to Privy Council) (Amendment) Order 2009 as made, from legislation.gov.uk." -- what does the "as made" here mean? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- That does seem like a British spelling. I'm assuming it means "original text".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
  - The phrase could probably just be cut, then. It would be assumed we're looking at the original text. But it's a dead link so hard to confirm either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
    - Here is the direct link ([1]). However, the citation method is done with a strange format ( {Cite legislation UK | type = si | year = 2006 | number = 3205 | si = The Falkland Islands (Appeals to Privy Council) (Amendment) Order 2009} ). I'm not sure how to fix that technical issue.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

(Unindent) Hi Khazar,

Navigating through as a reader and going through the comments, I am very surprised this article is even being considered for "Good Article" status. First off I'm sorry that I'm not too familiar with WP formatting, at least not to the degree that everyone else here is, but I hope this doesn't take away from the points I want to make.

Specifically, Khazar2, I hope that you can consider my comments as something from the point of view of a non-initiated wikipedia consumer with some familiarity in the issue being discussed, the history section, which I think is the main point of contention in the article and has, according to the history, repeatedly prevented the GA status being pursued or assign.

I have to be honest in my criticism of your reactions above, and hope that you go back, take the needed time and very carefully re-read and reconsider the input made by Andres Djordjalian above. Please don't take offence, but it seems to me that every time you responded to him you keep saying "dumb it down for me". To put it simply: he can't. No one can. You just have to take the time to read through it. Yes, it's a lot of work. A lot of notes to read. A lot of sources to look at. A lot of article talk pages to go through. And a lot of long comments, like mine here. But that's because it is a complex subject.

As I read your responses to him I hope that you realize the incredible amount of complexity and nuance that regards the Falklands issue in Anglo/Argentine relations. I truly hope that you are up to the task, but - and again, I don't mean to disrespect you in any way - it seems to me that, in the interest of accuracy, if you think it's too much to read through, perhaps you should recuse yourself and assign someone else to the review. That being said, here are the points I want to make.

I find it incredible that you don't see any neutrality issues. The mentioned tendentiousness of the article's history section is replete with pro-British bias in almost every sentence, through a combination of both overt and subtle inaccuracies that act together to cumulatively suggest to the reader that the Argentine POV is wrong or illegitimate while the British POV is right or legitimate. I think this violates the often cited "NPOV" rule.

Since you asked for specifics, I will give three specific examples, out of many MANY more I read and can't mention because I don't have all day:

1. The Article refers to colonel David Jewett as "American colonel David Jewett", suggesting Jewett held a commission from the United States, when in fact he was an officer duly commissioned by and serving under the authority of the Government of Buenos Aires. Further, the article refers to Jewett as a "privateer", when in fact it was the vessel which he commanded, not the man himself, which was a private interest. This inaccurately suggests a lack of "official" action on Argentine side, and where action is admitted, suggests illegitimacy of Argentine actions by portraying them (wrongly) as the actions of private individuals. For reference see "Commissioning letter from Argentina's National History Archives, to be found in the Revista del Archivo Nacional de Historia, Sección del Azuay, Issue 5, pp. 120-121, translated text below my comments". Yes this source is not online, however does it make it any less real? Does the fact that it hasn't been scanned legitimize the inaccuracies presented by the article text?

2. The article also fails to make any mention of Jewett's formal ceremony of declaration of sovereignty (see http://books.google.com/booksid=kEskAQAAIAAJ&q=Jewett+ceremonia+Malvinas+ca%C3%B1ones&dq=Jewett+ceremonia+Malvinas+ca%C3%B1ones&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eH15UsSDJMzPkQeTwoHYCw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA), which was a legal requirement for territorial possession at the time. The omission of this also undermines in the reader the Argentine claim to sovereignty.

3. The article states further, "the islands remained ungoverned", offering no citations for this conclusion. Whose conclusion is that? The editors - which makes this a blatant, uncited original research that is supposed to be forbidden by wikipedia. But it's subtle, most uninformed readers wouldn't notice it, and so it becomes another non-neutral reader suggestion which undermines Argentine assertions of sovereignty history and bolsters British ones.

As Andres said, "it adds up", and the picture it paints is clearly one which suggests that history records Britain did everything right for its title of sovereignty to be legitimate, while Argentina did everything wrong and so its claim to sovereignty must be illegitimate.

Lastly, even a cursory review of the article's history reveals it to be a "battleground" article, where contentious and deep-seated disputes between groups of established editors which many, many times have escalated to edit wars, noticeboards, rfc and even arbitration. The latest example of which has been so recent it can be read in this very talk page, a dispute over units of measurement that dates to the earliest days of this article. It's resolution, years and years and years after it first came up is the exception and not the rule, judging by all the disputes that happened after that still are pending.

By that I mean that historically, in this article, there have been countless accusations of pro-British POV original reserch, cherrypicking sources, fights about which sources make it into the article and which don't, etc. Here's a list of article talk page rows, I'm sure you will agree the tone of the editors hasn't changed that much at all when comparing the level of recent discourse to the level of discourse from years past.

I submit to you that this can't possibly be indicative of the type of collegial discourse indicative of a "good article". How many of these content disagreements over history can we honestly, truthfully say have been solved by consensus, rather than by admin involvement, blocking of editors, or simple exasperation and frustration on the part of editors who have stopped participating altogether?

I think, very few, if any.

Lastly...it occurs to me that this particular article is the perfect example for the enumerated attacks on the validity of Wikipedia as a source (just today, this article came out http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/6570/who-hates-wikipedia/#), so much so that THIS VERY ARTICLE ITSELF has been reported on by the media (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rafael-fernandez-de-castro/wikipedia-seeks-historic-_b_1955336.html). Surely, there are many other controversial articles on WP, but none that I've heard of whose contentiousness merits their being reported on by major media outlets.

Respectfully, this article should not be given "Good Article" status. It does not even come close. Not while the blatant problems in the history section remain. I would suggest that the problems which prevented this article from achieving GA status still remain, as very few of those objections have been satiated to the satisfaction of the majority of editors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_15#GA_Status

Translated text from above-cited sources:

“I hereby name don David Jewett as Colonel of the Army in the service of the National Marines, with a directorial deployment ongoing, this 15th of January, 1820.

Matias Irigogyen Minister of War and Marines

“The Supreme Director of the United Provinces of South America, attentive to services rendered, hereby names David Jewett as Captain of the ship “La Heroina”, and John Adams as second commander, sailing in the capacity of War Frigate of the State, and directing him to take possession of the Malvinas Islands on behalf of the Supreme Government of the United Provinces and of the Nation to which they belong by natural law. Thusly be it communicated and published.

Jose Rondeau Supreme Director of the United Provinces 15 January, 1820” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.180.253 (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your post and your constructive approach. Let me start by saying I think you're incorrect to say that I asked Andres to "dumb it down". I asked him to sort through which of his points he considered most important, and which were still valid after the revisions made by Marshal and others in response to his comments, so that we could try to address them. He was unable or unwilling to do so, and instead linked me to a good deal of pointlessly outdated, unsourced, or off-topic material. A waste of time for both of us, unfortunately.

Anyway, I appreciate your taking a more concrete approach. I've looked into your three points, though I'm not sure I see any serious concern based on them. The cited source does describe Jewett as a privateer; it appears that your offline primary source disputes that, but Wikipedia is primarily concerned with secondary sources. As for his ceremony of possession, the article doesn't appear to mention a ceremony of possession by any of the powers involved, so the Argentines aren't being discriminated against here as you suggest; it's simply a question of level of detail. The ceremony of possession wasn't mentioned in any of the other summary-level sources I consulted on this subject, and we are dealing with the summary level.

The bottom line for me is that I've checked a number of other encyclopedic summaries of the Islands' history and found little discrepancy between their presentation and that of this article draft; I've also checked the sources and don't believe that they're being misrepresented. It's possible there are word choices that can be improved, of course, but I'm not convinced there's a large enough neutrality issue to justify failing this for GA. Indeed, compared to other works, our article appears if anything to give the Argentine claims a bit more weight. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Marshal, a quick note: falklands.info seems unlikely to be a reliable source (and seems dead anyway). On the other hand, the claim it's sourcing is not one that requires sourcing for GA, so it's not a problem here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Conclusion

While a long-time single-purpose account and a new-to-the-article IP address have raised neutrality concerns, my source review suggests that the article represents its sources fairly and gives them weight comparable to other encyclopedic accounts of Falklands history. Requests for further detail would make sense for the "History of..." article, but not for this overview, and I don't believe that British claims are being presented in significantly greater detail than Argentine. If anything, I would suggest that much more detail be removed from this summary, rather than added, but I understand how the current editing environment makes that difficult.

One source appears possibly unreliable, but it merely identifies a painting in a caption, and has no bearing on this debate. The prose is correct and concise, the article stable, and the images appropriately licensed and captioned. While further refinement is likely possible, the article passes as a GA. Congratulations to all who have worked to bring it to this point! I know it's been a long road. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much Khazar! I'd invite you and everyone else a Pisco Sour, but even I don't have a good Pisco bottle to celebrate.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Guys, I don't want to be the grumpy one at the party, but I'm afraid I will be. :) I wish I had had the time to respond earlier.

I haven't had the chance to look carefully, but if the point to conclude the review positively is that there is a superficial compatibility with regular encyclopedias, well, I agree that there is. Luckily, the article doesn't state that the islands were invaded by Teutonic knights led by Yuri Gagarin. But it contains a number of dubious side notes and phrasings that are not in those encyclopedias and say a lot regarding issues of contention between Argentina and Britain. For example, Britannica leads to the interpretation that 1820-1833 was simply a period of Argentine occupation, but WP adds a number of questionable notes and phrasings that diminish that idea. I think it is clear, in my review and in my comments here, that the problems I found were of that kind. I don't see the observations in the review being incompatible with those encyclopedias, and I think attending them would make this article look more like theirs.

@MarshalN20: and @Khazar2:, you may think that these are innocent, meaningless differences, but they are not. For example, disregarding the Argentine protests between 1833 and mid 20th-century, as the article did previously and Khazar2 kindly pointed out, would make a crucial difference legally and politically speaking. There's more that hasn't been attended.

It is true that my participation in WP lately has mostly had a single purpose, but it wasn't to advance a political position. My latest edits on the Spanish-language WP, done before I engaged on this other topic here, were kind of politically opposite, because I clarified some ungrounded anti-British claims that had been entered there on a sensible subject. If I'm having a "single purpose", it is to correct the jingoistic coverage of certain topics, particularly where it provokes hurtful situations for people near me, such as some episodes that I have witnessed. I haven't been fond of editing on other subjects mostly because I spent a lot on these and I'm behind schedule with other outlets where, fortunately for me, I have the chance to satisfy my desire to research and narrate, as other people do with this site. These being my motives, I don't see grounds to discredit my work here with what is, after all, only a simplistic ad-hominem argument. And I'm sure that my focus doesn't justify the poverty of some discussions where I've participated.

Khazar2, I don't think you were fair when you wrote that I wasted our times. I directed you to up-to-the-point remarks that I had carefully written after reading much on this subject, and tried to explain that singling out two or three of those observations, as you were asking, wouldn't summarize the problem well. Much of the annotation of sources was pending, although I did show you precisely where you could find authoritative support online, in some cases very quickly, and said that I was willing to annotate thoroughly, as the topic requires, when I could find the time. I wish I was provided with these kinds of remarks and pointers, albeit incomplete, when I review papers for publication... -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andres, I don't mean to push the meta-debate any further, since it's what's distracting us from concrete article improvement in the first place. I'll simply say again that, unfortunately, I didn't find your comments very helpful for the reasons stated above (lack of focus, failure to sort out what has been addressed and hasn't been, and failure to source). If you wish, though, it's your right to appeal the result at WP:GAR; I'm always happy to have my work double-checked, and this is clearly a subject on which reasonable people can disagree. I would suggest putting together something succinct, concrete, and actionable before you post there, which will lead to a better discussion. All best, Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Add topic