Talk:Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(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; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)		Pass
(b) (MoS)		Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)		Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)		Pass
(c) (original research)		Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)		Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)		Pass
(b) (focused)		Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	SEE COMMENT BELOW	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)		Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	A solid little article. Well referenced and well illustrated. Neutral in tone, it sticks to the topic and covers what needs covering. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello, I am struglling with the text editor because the edit source is somewhat more difficult than others I have used in Portuguese wikipedia. The corresponding profile of Otelo in Portuguese changed from what it seemed something similar to this. I have to read it more carefully, but it seems it has issues on the polemics: content problems (spoke on pardons, but not amnesty in the summary) and tone issues ("amnesty also did not please the terrorists"). Hope to be able to help Luluzinha2023 (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jp16103: I will start by reviewing AustralianRupert's comments, as it is difficult to go far wrong if following his advice. And Hawkeye7! Another top commentator.

• The lead needs further expansion. Perhaps a sentence on his trial and sentence and one on what he has been doing since retirement.
• Perhaps add a sentence or two on what he has been doing since he retired from public life?
• Is he still married? If not when did he separate? When did he divorce? Is he still in a relationship with Maria Morais? If not, when did it end? Does she have any notability independent of Carvalho?
• You refer to both "Carvalho" and "Otelo". Generally an article is consistent.

Prose.

• "revolutionary process (PREC)" I don't think that you need "(PREC)". I would delete it.
• "under the leadership of Otelo. The coup, allegedly orchestrated by Otelo". Either it was under his leadership or was allegedly under his leadership. Pick one.
• In this paragraph, at the end of 1975 he is in prison. The next paragraph,1976, has him standing for president. A bridging sentence explaining this seems appropriate.
• "In 1989, he was amnestied and a resumption of the procedure was struck down because of a legal imbroglio." What is "the procedure"? Possibly replace with "the case"?
• "After his trial for terrorism charges, Otelo retired from military service and public life in 1989." He was tried 5 years earlier. Do you mean "After being amnestied he retired..."?

A really good little article. Nice work. You should be able to get it to GA rapidly. I will leave you to consider the above. I will be back later to review the images and the references. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I have given the article a light copy edit. Let me know if there is anything you don't like or don't understand. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Jp16103: Unfortunately, two of the images in the article - the two posters - seem to have been posted on Commons without the correct permissions. "Ephemera" is granting permission for use, but it needs to be granted by the copyright holder. So I suspect that the images will shortly be removed from Commons. Could you see if you could come up with some replacements and ping me when you do. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for your insight and the review. First and foremost I would like to apologise for the delay in editing the article, I have been very busy. I have made the changes that you recommended, please let me know if there is anything else I should add to the article. Thank you so much for the review and your consideration. Jp16103 21:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Jp16103: No problem. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. I'm glad that you were able to find the time to finish this off. You have clearly put a lot of work into it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

More context required In the passage

In 2011, during the Portuguese financial crisis when the country was at the end of the Center-Left government of José Socrates and had to request international financial assistance, Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho stated that he wouldn't have made the revolution if he had known what the country would become after it.[17] He also stated that the country would need a man as honest as Salazar to deal with the crisis, but from a non-fascist perspective.[18]

It almost suggests that Otelo's views started to shift to a more right-wing stance, which isn't true. A better phrasing, and better contextualization of these quotes that are here without enough information to provide a complete context, is needed, since the quotes were controversial at the time and they don't capture the total sentiment of Otelo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.63.83.37 (talk • contribs)