GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Display name 99 ( talk · contribs) 22:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The review has commenced.
1. It is well-written.
2. It is verifiable with no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage.
4. Neutral.
5. Stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images.
Display name 99, I think it is very generous not to have failed this article immediately, given its current rudimentary state. The article was assessed as Start class by Catlemur on February 17 of this year, which seems to me to be an accurate assessment of it now—indeed, it still has identical text and referencing. There are quite a few issues that were overlooked in the review above, from WP:LEAD violations (part of criterion 1), to not adequately broad in its coverage, which would include information about the political situation of Portugal at the time, what proportion of the Navy's ships sided with the revolt, which ships opposed them, and more on who the belligerents were. (Only two people are named in the article text, one of whom has neither given name nor rank.) There's even a statement "Salazar ordered the ships to be destroyed by gunfire", but nothing on whether the ships were actually destroyed. I hope the statement "there are no enormous issues" does not give the nominator false hope: this is very far from a Good Article, and will need a great deal of work indeed to become one, including a major expansion of text. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Display name 99 ( talk · contribs) 22:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The review has commenced.
1. It is well-written.
2. It is verifiable with no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage.
4. Neutral.
5. Stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images.
Display name 99, I think it is very generous not to have failed this article immediately, given its current rudimentary state. The article was assessed as Start class by Catlemur on February 17 of this year, which seems to me to be an accurate assessment of it now—indeed, it still has identical text and referencing. There are quite a few issues that were overlooked in the review above, from WP:LEAD violations (part of criterion 1), to not adequately broad in its coverage, which would include information about the political situation of Portugal at the time, what proportion of the Navy's ships sided with the revolt, which ships opposed them, and more on who the belligerents were. (Only two people are named in the article text, one of whom has neither given name nor rank.) There's even a statement "Salazar ordered the ships to be destroyed by gunfire", but nothing on whether the ships were actually destroyed. I hope the statement "there are no enormous issues" does not give the nominator false hope: this is very far from a Good Article, and will need a great deal of work indeed to become one, including a major expansion of text. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)