Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uruguayan War/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 00:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Uruguayan War

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC) and Astynax[reply]

This article has undergone an extensive copyedit by Malleus Fatuorum (now User:Eric Corbett). It's very well researched and it's certainly the best piece of text in English available about the conflict. Lecen (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Marshal's oppose moved to this FAC's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move and reasoning noted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm seeing a strong, well-referenced article that has had a severe prose massage from some of the best copyeditors on Wikipedia. What I'm not seeing is any basis for Marshall's oppose. Urugauayan War is used in sources, and there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from creating Uruguayan War (disambiguation). The Spanish name is four vs. two in Google Books (when you take out Wikipedia mirrors and a repeat). Given the complete paucity of sources, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the nominator, but we can always compromise and add them both. As for "tacit support", the basis is in the lead, first paragraph, last sentence. Your analogy of Chilean and Peruvian political support in the Falklands War is nothing close to "supplies, Argentine volunteers and river transport for troops." Last, the use of an oppose just three hours after this was nominated, over what are essentially minor, nitpicky issues is ... interesting, especially given the current arbitration case relating to Marshal and Lecen. I do hope/expect that the delegates will take this into account. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

"Frontier life in Rio Grande do Sul was often chaotic with cattle-rustling, hostilities between partisans of various cattle barons and killings, which often spilled across the border into Uruguay, provoking retaliatory raids.": I can't tell if it was only the killings that spilled across the border, or if only the killings provoked retaliation.
"as just valid claims": looks like a misquote; just as valid claims, maybe?
"from both navy and army": I recommend "from the navy and army", but "total from the navy and army" or "from the navy and army combined" would be fine too.
"gave slightly higher numbers: 616 (204 dead, 411 wounded and 1 missing).": "put the total at 616 ..."
"envisaged": Garner's recommends "envisioned" in AmEng in all but literary contexts.
Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks a lot, Dank. --Lecen (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Paranaibarivermap.png (source of first map): first source link is not working
File:Villa_del_salto_destroyed.jpg: when/where was this first published?
File:Cerro_de_Montevideo_desde_la_ciudad._Año_1865_(no_watermark).jpg: when/where was this first published?
For images from the 1860s where author is unknown, it is possible (though not likely) that date of death was less than 100 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments:

Worth checking the bibliography against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Composition titles - some of the titles, e.g. "The Paraguayan War: Causes and early conduct" aren't complying with this yet
"client-patron" - the more usual sequence in English is "patron-client"
" Unlike the elder López, who wanted to avoid "any entangling alliances", Solano López greeted the Blanco's proposal with enthusiasm." - unclear from the main text if the quote is something which Lopez said, or if it's a quote from a historian.
" The Brazilian monarchy could not afford to remain aloof" - "aloof" read awkwardly to me here; "uninvolved", "neutral"?
" included covert efforts to underwrite opposition parties" - "included covertly underwriting opposition parties"?
"and regarded itself as Brazilian rather than Uruguayan" - "itself" felt odd, but I may be wrong; I'd have expected "themselves"
"(called "Division of Observation" until the ultimatum)" - "the Division of Observation"? (it sounds very odd without an article)
"According to Whigham "Suárez's " - a comma after Whigham might make it easier to read.
Overall, it seems to reflect the English-sourced literature well. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you for taking the time to read through the article. Most of your suggestions and corrections have been implemented. • Astynax ^talk 06:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, excellent read and very well-done. I don't have anything to add that wouldn't be both subjective and minor. --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Nikki or Andy, did you happen to do a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issues with the sources or formatting. --Laser brain (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for taking a second look. • Astynax ^talk 16:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.