Talk:Monarchies in the Americas/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I've finally come around to reviewing this article after your request on my talk page a couple of weeks ago. Sorry about the long wait :( I should have the full review up soon! Dana boomer (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I would like to see the lead expanded. WP:Lead recommends three to four paragraphs for an article of this length.

   • Perhaps I just prefer paragraphs with more meat to them, but I've just worked on the lead and can't seem to fit in three paragraphs worth of info without starting to repeat what comes in the immediately following section. Is three paragraphs really necessary? Aritcle length alone seems to be an overly simple guide for the size of the lead. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

   • What you have done so far is an improvement. However, I would like to point out that at this point the Context section is completely unreferenced. If it is to be used as an introduction/overview/summary of the article, which is what it basically is, then it should just be made into the intro, rather than having an intro, then an overview, then the main text. If it's going to remain its own section, it needs to be referenced, at the very least. As it is, I'm not seeing the point of having both an intro and a context section. Dana boomer (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • So you're saying it would be OK to merge the context section with the intro? Inititally it was all part of the intro. It got separated due to its size. I'll test merging it and you can check to see it's OK? Thanks, --Cameron* 14:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   • It looks really good after the merge. For an article of this lenth, four paragraphs is OK. Dana boomer (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Because of my concerns over the referencing of the article, I have not done a complete check of prose. When I see work progressing on the sourcing, I will go back through and make a list of prose issues (if any) to be addressed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • Several of your web reference links are dead. Please check out #1 (Dept of Canadian Heritage), 10 (Berdusco), 11 (Referendum on Republic), 16 (The Crown in Canada) and 17 (MacLeod). Except the Berdusco one...I can't seem to find which one you mean. --Cameron* 13:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Not sure what happened to Berdusco, but the one I'm reading as dead right now is the current ref #10, named "It's time for Canada to grow up". Dana boomer (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

   • I don't know where all the broken refs are coming from. As for this one, I took the liberty of removing it (and rewording the section). The article itself seems to have vanished and as it is an assumption of the author, I probbly won't be able to find a replacement. Regardless, it isn't important to the article. Thanks for your swift reply. --Cameron* 13:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Please make sure that all of your web references have access dates. Refs 12, 14, and 16, to grab a few, don't. Cite book refs don't need them, do they? --Cameron* 12:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

   • No, book refs do not need accessdates, unless you have a link to a website for some reason (i.e., you got the info from a Google books page), in which case you do. Dana boomer (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Ok, we had a few of them but I have now added the access dates to them too. --Cameron* 13:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Please make sure that refs not in English are marked as such. For example, Ref 62 (Mexico colonial). Refs in English do not need to be marked as such. For example, refs 21, 22, and 24. Marked foreign language, unmarked English refs. --Cameron* 12:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
   • What makes these references reliable:

   • #15 (Odrowaz-Sypniewska). Appears to be a self-published site. Removed. Published by Angelfire = self published.
   • #46 and 47 (casaimperiel). No publisher or source info that I can find. Replaced with Britannica refs. --Cameron* 17:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
   • #51 ("American Indian Epidemics"). Appears to be self-published, says simply that it's gathered from a "number of sources". Agreed, "number of sources" = not reliable. :) --Cameron* 15:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
   • #62 (Mexico colonial). I can't read Spanish, but Tripod sites are generally self-published and therefore considered unreliable. Removed as a tripod site. --Cameron* 15:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Please try to make sure all books have ISBNs if possible. For example, see refs 38, 39 and 41.
   • Citation and Cite xyz templates should not be mixed. Please choose one or the other and make it consistent throughout the article. There were more cite xyz than citation templates: replaced the latter with the former. --Cameron* 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
   • I am concerned about the lack of references in some sections.

• The Context section,
• Saint Lucia subsection, Must have missed this one out while I was adding refs. --Cameron* 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Denmark subsection, Done. --Cameron* 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• The Netherlands subsection, Added refs. --Cameron* 16:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Aztec subsection,
• Inca subsection and
• Maya subsection have no references at all.

Many other sections have unreferenced paragraphs or partial paragraphs. References, I would think, are particularly important when you're talking about pretender kings, puppet governments and disputed territories.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. 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):

   • The image of Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza is copyrighted. Since you don't have pictures of every monarch (or pretender), I'm not really seeing where this image is absolutely necessary to use. Thoughts? Nice pic but not necessary :).--Cameron* 14:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is the beginning of the review. I'm still working on it, so please be patient... Dana boomer (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Allright, I've finished with the review for now. As you can see from my comments above, I have some serious concerns about the referencing of the article. I am not going to fail the article outright, but some serious work needs to be done on the quality and quantity of sources before the article is of GA status. It looks from the talk page like some productive discussion has been proceeding over the past couple of weeks, and its great to see so many editors collaborating on an article of this importance. I have this review page watchlisted, so you can drop a note here with any questions you may have. Dana boomer (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dana. Not really what I call a long wait. We'd be left waiting much longer if you'd not have taken this on for us! The royalty and nobility section of GA is rather slow. So...thanks from everyone who has put work into the article and thanks for all your work and nice comments! :) Best, --Cameron* 14:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: We might need more than a week this time...due to the holiday season. :) --Cameron* 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If it takes you longer than a week that's fine...as long as work continues to proceed on the article I'm willing to give it some extra time. Please realize, though, that when you remove unreliable sources, you need to replace them with something, unless the existing sources in the section cover the information. If you don't replace them and the remaining sources don't cover the info, you're giving the (wrong) impression that the sources there do cover it. Dana boomer (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Sofar I have only removed three refs. Two of which I have replaced. The other one I haven't replaced as it is still covered by the other refs in that section. :) Best, --Cameron* 17:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Things are looking pretty good...just a couple of comments. First, you can add language tags to the templates by using the parameter "|language=", if you wish. I think it's easier, but you can also keep it the way you have it now. Also, please be careful of relying too much on general encyclopedias like Britannica and MSN Encarta. Although these are OK for generic facts, they are not really considered a good source for large swaths of an article. I am seeing you reference more and more of the article to these sources, and its beginning to make me a bit nervous :) This is especially true if you plan on taking the article to FAC, as you will probably get hit hard for these sources there. Dana boomer (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I decided to use the language parameter. I didn't know it existed, or just forgot...I can be rather clumsy :S. I will endeavor to replace the Britannica and Encarta refs. The problem is, when I started the article it only contained current monarchies. Other users later added the past monarchies section. So I admit my knowledge thereof is not too good, and I usually rely on "refs for dummies" as opposed to more specialist refs. I had imagined the other users would pitch in when it got down to GA. Perhaps the holiday season isn't the best time to start a GA. :) Best, --Cameron* 23:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is work still progressing on this? It looks like not much has been done over the past few days. A few other things I'd like to mention:

• Please make sure that refs are in numerical order when you have more than one reference in a row. For example, it should be [5][10], not [10][5]. Also, refs should go after punctuation, not before.
• I am concerned about the fact that a 1997 reference is being used to source the current High Commissioner of Greenland in the Denmark section.
• The references still need some work. There are quite a few unreferenced paragraphs and partial paragraphs in the article.

Please let me know if you're still working on this. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope to address these points on Thursday or Friday. Sorry to keep you waiting. The holidays are over, and I'm rather busy! :( --Cameron* 21:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed problems one and two so far. As to the third, which paragraphs in particular, need more work? --Cameron* 11:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added fact tags in the article where I would like to see references. I believe it is most important to have this article fully referenced, because you are discussing things that could be controversial among nationalists in the various countries or any supporters of current pretenders to various thrones. Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now finished replacing the tags with refs. --Cameron* 17:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Second Review

OK, things are looking much better now as far as references go. Here are my comments from the prose review, as well as some remaining comments on other things:

• Some "citation" reference templates got mixed back in on the last round of referencing. I counted three of them that need to be changed back to "cite xyz" format.
• In the Jamaica section, it says "A poll taken in Jamaica during the Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2002 showed that 57% of those surveyed strongly believed that Elizabeth's tour of the country was very relevant." Very relevant to what?
• In the Succession laws section, it says "Suggestion of change have been raised in the Commonwealth realms in regards to the order of succession;". I think this is supposed to be "suggestions" (plural), please check the grammar on this whole sentence.

Once these three things are taken care of, the article should be good to go for GA status. Please drop a note here when you're finished with these, and I will take a final look through the article. Dana boomer (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. ;) --Cameron* 09:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Allright, everything looks good, so I'm going to pass this article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)