![]() | Fortress of Humaitá has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 20, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Humaita and the quadrilatero are two diferent things. The article confunds them both. Eleutheure ( talk) 23:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I have proposed that the pages Siege of Humaitá and Passage of Humaitá be merged into this page. For discussion, see the talk page of Siege of Humaitá. In essence: it doesn't make too much sense to have three independent Articles about aspects of the same thing, especially since separating the topics makes it much harder to appreciate the difficulties faced by the attackers and defenders, respectively. Ttocserp 13:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 21:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I will take this review. I am sorry for how long you've had to wait. I've reviewed 60+ other articles, including some long and complex ones, and will review this article against the 6
good article criteria. I'll read over this article and have a think, then start the review in 2-3 days. --
Tom (LT) (
talk)
21:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Very |
![]() |
1b. 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: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Some minor problems to be described |
![]() |
2b. 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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Random samples of text checked - none found |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
![]() |
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: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Checked |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
A fascinating article, you've clearly put a lot of work into this article and the layout and content reflects your enthusiasm for the topic. I will go through this article again briefly. There are a few areas that lack citations, impacting on verifiability, that will need citations. Other than that I see no other barriers to good article nomination. I am yet to: check for plagiarism, check some sources, and check images. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Needing citations: -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your edits and responsiveness. This is a great article to read and I am passing it as a GA. I would guess this is probably the most thorough resource on this topic around, you should be proud of your work and I hope it is also a delight to read for interested readers. Well done, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted a lot of superfluous categories. They were grandfather categories. Wiki policy says not to have every grandfather category. Wiki policy says to diffuse to the lowest branch of the tree. That is now the position of the categories. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Fortress of Humaitá has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 20, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Humaita and the quadrilatero are two diferent things. The article confunds them both. Eleutheure ( talk) 23:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I have proposed that the pages Siege of Humaitá and Passage of Humaitá be merged into this page. For discussion, see the talk page of Siege of Humaitá. In essence: it doesn't make too much sense to have three independent Articles about aspects of the same thing, especially since separating the topics makes it much harder to appreciate the difficulties faced by the attackers and defenders, respectively. Ttocserp 13:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 21:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I will take this review. I am sorry for how long you've had to wait. I've reviewed 60+ other articles, including some long and complex ones, and will review this article against the 6
good article criteria. I'll read over this article and have a think, then start the review in 2-3 days. --
Tom (LT) (
talk)
21:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Very |
![]() |
1b. 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: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Some minor problems to be described |
![]() |
2b. 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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Random samples of text checked - none found |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
![]() |
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: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Checked |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
A fascinating article, you've clearly put a lot of work into this article and the layout and content reflects your enthusiasm for the topic. I will go through this article again briefly. There are a few areas that lack citations, impacting on verifiability, that will need citations. Other than that I see no other barriers to good article nomination. I am yet to: check for plagiarism, check some sources, and check images. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Needing citations: -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your edits and responsiveness. This is a great article to read and I am passing it as a GA. I would guess this is probably the most thorough resource on this topic around, you should be proud of your work and I hope it is also a delight to read for interested readers. Well done, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted a lot of superfluous categories. They were grandfather categories. Wiki policy says not to have every grandfather category. Wiki policy says to diffuse to the lowest branch of the tree. That is now the position of the categories. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)