San Esteban (1554 shipwreck) 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: July 14, 2014. ( Reviewed version).

A fact from San Esteban (1554 shipwreck) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 February 2014 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the San Esteban carried cockroaches across the Atlantic in the 1550s? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/San Esteban (1554 shipwreck).

	This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

This review is transcluded from Talk:San Esteban (1554 shipwreck)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 13:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Should leave some comments today and will finish the review tomorrow. ☠ Jag uar ☠ 13:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

• "Almost all the others died of thirst or starvation, or were killed by hostile local people" - weren't they Native Americans?

Changed to Karankawa Indians.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Complies per WP:LEAD and meets the GA criteria as it summarises the article well.

16th century

• "The fleet had a difficult outbound voyage, suffering from bad weather, pirates and accidents." - suffering from pirates? How about something like "suffering from bad weather, accidents and 'skirmishes' from pirates"? Or something similar??

Good point, changed as suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• "It was said that a priest in Mexico" - should Mexico be referred to as New Spain in this article?

Well-spotted!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I am going to change that back to Mexico. That is what the source says, and it consistently uses "New Spain" elsewhere. "Mexico" was the Aztec name for the valley that held the city of Tenochtitlan. The Spanish used "Mexico" for the valley and the city. They used "New Spain" for their whole territory from Panama to California. Presumably the priest was in Mexico city. Just a minor quibble. I really appreciate the time taken to review the article. Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

20th century

• "Pewter objects from England were found and stoneware from Cologne" - this should be changed to either Cologne, Germany or just Germany?

I'll add Germany just for the geographically challenged among us :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

References

There are no dead links and the citations are in the correct places; so this meets the GA criteria too.

Close - promoted

Not even going to put this on hold because the concerns are not significant! This article clearly meets the GA criteria as it is. The prose is excellent, the article is very comprehensive and all the references (including citations) meet the GA criteria. Couldn't find anything obstructing the GA criteria, so it seems right to promote it now. You may want to address those concerns if you wish, but those were just questions that does not affect the article in any way. ☠ Jag uar ☠ 13:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply