Talk:Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Comment: Tonyjeff (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is awfully good, with detailed aspects concerning Paraná, and avoiding details that may not be of general interest. Almost all statements are referenced with good sources, and there is a good deal of images.

I would suggest to eliminate red links, trying to create the respective articles – it helps readers to figure the whole background information.

A great part of this article was worked by user Lecen, which is an especialist in Brazilian history and is managing to become an excellent user. In all aspects, this article deserves to be nominated.

Thank you for beginning this review. I agree that some of the redlinks are unlikely to be notable enough to have articles written in the English version of Wikipedia. I have removed some of those links and placed a list on the article's talk page for reference. • Astynax ^talk 17:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Noting that the original reviewer disappeared after drive-by commenting. This needs a Full review still. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This page popped up on my radar when it was transcluded to the article's talk page earlier today. I thought there was activity—I should have noticed the date! • Astynax ^talk 00:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC) OK, I shall start a full review.

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written, I made a few copy edits.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is well referenced, I assume good faith for the references as I have no access to them.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is where the article has faults in my opinion. Although it is obviously necessary to provide some context and background, there are too many sections where we have long passages about the 19th century politics of Brazil (which are interesting and informative), but I feel that WP:Summary style should be employed. A separate article on the Politics of 19th century Brazil could be created and the sections of that referred to as necessary.

   Legacy. I am surprised that there is no legacy section. For someone who so profoundly influenced the evolution of modern politics in Brazil the ommission of such a section is surprising.  Done

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   My concerns as stated above are about the focus of the article. I feel there is so much background in many sections that focus on the subject of the article is lost. On hold for seven days, please respond here, I have this page on my watchlist. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for your rapid response. The legacy section is fine. I am happy to pass this as a Good article. When you have other articles on the political history of the Empire period up together you could consider moving some material to those and using summary style as mentioned previously. Then you could ask for a peer review and consider going to WP:FAC. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you very much for taking your time to review the article. It is very kind of you to do that. Second, about your remarks over the article focus on 19th Century Brazilian politics: indeed, you are correct. It was on purpose. Why I did that? Because the articles about that period of Brazilian history (when it was an Empire) are lacking. Yes, you can find an article about the Empire of Brazil, about its history and even about some of its main historical figures. However, not only they do not have sources (at least most of them) but their text is simply wrong. My sincere opinion? We can remove the extra information, but the article will become unreadable to anyone (the vast majority, I presume) who does not know much about Brazilian history. This is why I am now working on the article about Emperor Pedro II. Once we have a fair ammount of reliable articles related to the Imperial era, we can let them more focused on each subject. However, if you do really believe that we must remove that, I'll do it. Again, thank you very much. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy that. But I would still like to see a legacy section. The article ends rather abroptly with the subject's death. Was he then forgotten. Surely his political career made some impression on subsequent generations. Is he still remebered in Brazilian politics? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it right now. I'll let you know when it is done. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with it. I'll ask Astynax to copy-edit it. Is it ok as it is right now or do you believe it needs to be expanded? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that. Thank you for all your help, Jezhotwells! --Lecen (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done a quick copyedit. The translated quotations from Portuguese sources should be checked again, as I've edited a bit for better clarity in English. • Astynax ^talk 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)