Toolbox |
---|
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for Featured article candidacy in the near future and I want to ensure that this article is not missing anything major which would fail any of the featured article criteria. Anything copyedit related shouldn't be necessarily as it went through the GOCE earlier this year.
Thanks! PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 06:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll go through this in the next few days, and my thoughts.
Kaiser matias (
talk) 19:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I read through the article, and have some comments. Note I did not read explicitly for prose or style (unless it impacted my ability to comprehend what I was reading), but more for my understanding of the topic at hand, which I am not familiar with:
It's a fairly good article, though I think someone more experienced in terms of prose should go through, as it could be cleaned up a bit that way. Overall though it seems comprehensive and nothing overtly standing out as an issue. Kaiser matias ( talk) 17:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@ PizzaKing13: It has been a month since the last comment on this PR. Are you still looking for comments, or is this ready to be closed and nominated at WP:FAC? Z1720 ( talk) 19:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a long article; I'll be taking this in small chunks as I find time, probably spread out over the next week. Take all of these as suggestions, not demands. RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
On 16 September 1810, criollo priest Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla issued the Cry of Dolores, beginning the Mexican War of Independence from the Spanish Empire in New Spain—Spain's colony that encompassed modern-day Mexico, Central America, and the southwestern United StateThat's a mouthful of a sentence. Maybe a full stop after Cry of Dolores then pick up with, "This began the..."?
was made as a result of-> "was a reaction to"?
which overthrew Spanish King Ferdinand VII, it's not clear if "which" refers to "his declaration" or "Napolean's invasion".
Napoleon's invasion of SpainWP:SEAOFBLUE
Although Ferdinand VII was restoredI'm not sure what standard practice is, but since there's only one Ferdinand mentioned in this article, I'd be inclined to say "Ferdinand VII" the first time, and just "Ferdinand" thereafter.
Although Ferdinand VII was restored in 1814, the constitution of 1812 was suspended, and some in New Spain were not satisfied with his reign.this reads as a list of three things: 1) Ferdinand was restored, 2) the constitution was suspended, and 3) some were not satisfied. I don't think that's what you intended.
On 24 February 1821, Agustín de Iturbide, a Mexican general fighting for independence, published his Plan of the Three Guarantees in the city of Iguala, outlining his vision for the new independent Mexican state.Another overly-long sentence. Maybe a full stop after "Three Guarantees", then new sentence: "This outlined..."? Actually, I'm not sure how to parse this. Is it "his plan of the Three Guarantees in the city of Iguala", or is Iguala just where the publication happened?
It contained three key provisions: the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, that Catholicism would be the state religion and would receive special protections, and that the army and people of both European descent and mestizos (people of mixed-European and indigenous ancestry) would also receive special protectionsHmmm, this is starting to become a pattern; sentences so long and complicated I get lost before I reach the end. For example, when I get to "and would receive", I'm thinking, "OK, I'm parsing a list of what I've been told will be three things. You've told me two of them, so now I'm expecting what comes after the 'and' to be the third" Maybe (in addition to splitting into two sentences), "Catholicism would be the state religion (receiving special protections) and that the army ..."
any member of his immediate familywhose immediate family: Ferdinand's or Iturbide's?
Until an emperor could be appointed, Iturbide held the position of president of the regency council unopposed.What's the relationship between the positions of emperor and president of the council? How does appointing an emperor create opposition for the president?
With an organization like that, the reader will be able to follow the flow of events as they happenein order, and how each one set the stage for the next. And then when you finally get up to 1821, you need to explain how the government of the time was organized. What was the regency council, what power did it's president have, what power did the emperor have, and how was the emperor's position related to the president's position? RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)At the beginning of the 19th century, the area which encompasses modern-day Mexico, Central America, and the southwestern United States was part of the spanish colony of New Spain. In (year) France invaded Spain (overthrew Ferdinand, installed Joseph, etc), leading to criollo priest Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla issuing the Cry of Dolores on 16 Septermber 1810, etc. In 1812 Spain got a bright shiny new constitution, which was suspened in 1814 when Ferdinand was restored as king. In 1820, high-ranking ....
@ RoySmith: Thanks for your comments so far! PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 19:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The declarations of independence of Mexico (left) and Central America (right)You've linked "Mexico" and "Central America". I assumed they linked to Mexico and Central America, see WP:EASTEREGG. I was looking for the English translations of those documents, but it never occurred to me that those links would actually take me to the articles where those translations were given.
(moving on to "Central American Independence")
Central America, which had been administered as a colony of Spain under the Captaincy General of Guatemala (also known as the Kingdom of Guatemala) since 1568,[15] launched attempted rebellions in 1811 and 1814 [es] to gain independence.another overly-complex sentence. I'd split this in two: "Central America had been ... since 1568. It launched ..." If you want, you could join that second sentence to the next: "... to gain independence; both attempts were ..." At least that way, you'd end up with one sentence that's talking about the status prior to 1811, and another that's talking about the rebellions. You could drop "attempted"; that's implied by "attempts were suppressed".
Gabino Gaínza, the captain general of Guatemala, opposed independence, but ultimately moved to support independence once its proponents told him that he could remain as captain general even after independence
I'm going to stop here, for risk of being repetitive. I like the fact that you're not writing a stodgy series of simple sentences. For example, I see this style of writing a lot in other FACs: "Gabino Gainza was the captain general of Guatemala. He opposed independence. Proponents told him he could remain as captain general after independence. Then he supported independence" and it's painful to read. Your flowing style is a pleasure by comparison, but I think you overdo it (at least for my taste). My overall suggestion is to go through the entire text and look for sentences that digress more than one level. For example, the above sentence is fundamentally "Gabino Gaínza initially opposed independence but changed his mind". And then you start hanging additional stuff on that scaffolding. You explain who he is ("the captain general of Guatemala"). And then you expound on why he changed his mind. Either of those would be good, but packing both into the sentence I think becomes overload. As another example, a little later:
Gaínza, who had assumed the political leadership of both Guatemala and the Consultive Junta under the title of Superior Political Chief,[33] was in favor of annexation, as was Bishop Nicolás García Jerez of Nicaragua and the Aycinena clan [es] of Guatemalais basically "Gainza, Bishop Jerez, and the Aycinena clan were all in favor of annexation", but that's wrapped up in so much additional information, by the time I got to the end of the sentence, I was lost. Anyway, I hope that's useful, even if I didn't do a complete review. RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Please ping me when you take this to FAC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for Featured article candidacy in the near future and I want to ensure that this article is not missing anything major which would fail any of the featured article criteria. Anything copyedit related shouldn't be necessarily as it went through the GOCE earlier this year.
Thanks! PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 06:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll go through this in the next few days, and my thoughts.
Kaiser matias (
talk) 19:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I read through the article, and have some comments. Note I did not read explicitly for prose or style (unless it impacted my ability to comprehend what I was reading), but more for my understanding of the topic at hand, which I am not familiar with:
It's a fairly good article, though I think someone more experienced in terms of prose should go through, as it could be cleaned up a bit that way. Overall though it seems comprehensive and nothing overtly standing out as an issue. Kaiser matias ( talk) 17:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@ PizzaKing13: It has been a month since the last comment on this PR. Are you still looking for comments, or is this ready to be closed and nominated at WP:FAC? Z1720 ( talk) 19:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a long article; I'll be taking this in small chunks as I find time, probably spread out over the next week. Take all of these as suggestions, not demands. RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
On 16 September 1810, criollo priest Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla issued the Cry of Dolores, beginning the Mexican War of Independence from the Spanish Empire in New Spain—Spain's colony that encompassed modern-day Mexico, Central America, and the southwestern United StateThat's a mouthful of a sentence. Maybe a full stop after Cry of Dolores then pick up with, "This began the..."?
was made as a result of-> "was a reaction to"?
which overthrew Spanish King Ferdinand VII, it's not clear if "which" refers to "his declaration" or "Napolean's invasion".
Napoleon's invasion of SpainWP:SEAOFBLUE
Although Ferdinand VII was restoredI'm not sure what standard practice is, but since there's only one Ferdinand mentioned in this article, I'd be inclined to say "Ferdinand VII" the first time, and just "Ferdinand" thereafter.
Although Ferdinand VII was restored in 1814, the constitution of 1812 was suspended, and some in New Spain were not satisfied with his reign.this reads as a list of three things: 1) Ferdinand was restored, 2) the constitution was suspended, and 3) some were not satisfied. I don't think that's what you intended.
On 24 February 1821, Agustín de Iturbide, a Mexican general fighting for independence, published his Plan of the Three Guarantees in the city of Iguala, outlining his vision for the new independent Mexican state.Another overly-long sentence. Maybe a full stop after "Three Guarantees", then new sentence: "This outlined..."? Actually, I'm not sure how to parse this. Is it "his plan of the Three Guarantees in the city of Iguala", or is Iguala just where the publication happened?
It contained three key provisions: the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, that Catholicism would be the state religion and would receive special protections, and that the army and people of both European descent and mestizos (people of mixed-European and indigenous ancestry) would also receive special protectionsHmmm, this is starting to become a pattern; sentences so long and complicated I get lost before I reach the end. For example, when I get to "and would receive", I'm thinking, "OK, I'm parsing a list of what I've been told will be three things. You've told me two of them, so now I'm expecting what comes after the 'and' to be the third" Maybe (in addition to splitting into two sentences), "Catholicism would be the state religion (receiving special protections) and that the army ..."
any member of his immediate familywhose immediate family: Ferdinand's or Iturbide's?
Until an emperor could be appointed, Iturbide held the position of president of the regency council unopposed.What's the relationship between the positions of emperor and president of the council? How does appointing an emperor create opposition for the president?
With an organization like that, the reader will be able to follow the flow of events as they happenein order, and how each one set the stage for the next. And then when you finally get up to 1821, you need to explain how the government of the time was organized. What was the regency council, what power did it's president have, what power did the emperor have, and how was the emperor's position related to the president's position? RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)At the beginning of the 19th century, the area which encompasses modern-day Mexico, Central America, and the southwestern United States was part of the spanish colony of New Spain. In (year) France invaded Spain (overthrew Ferdinand, installed Joseph, etc), leading to criollo priest Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla issuing the Cry of Dolores on 16 Septermber 1810, etc. In 1812 Spain got a bright shiny new constitution, which was suspened in 1814 when Ferdinand was restored as king. In 1820, high-ranking ....
@ RoySmith: Thanks for your comments so far! PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 19:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The declarations of independence of Mexico (left) and Central America (right)You've linked "Mexico" and "Central America". I assumed they linked to Mexico and Central America, see WP:EASTEREGG. I was looking for the English translations of those documents, but it never occurred to me that those links would actually take me to the articles where those translations were given.
(moving on to "Central American Independence")
Central America, which had been administered as a colony of Spain under the Captaincy General of Guatemala (also known as the Kingdom of Guatemala) since 1568,[15] launched attempted rebellions in 1811 and 1814 [es] to gain independence.another overly-complex sentence. I'd split this in two: "Central America had been ... since 1568. It launched ..." If you want, you could join that second sentence to the next: "... to gain independence; both attempts were ..." At least that way, you'd end up with one sentence that's talking about the status prior to 1811, and another that's talking about the rebellions. You could drop "attempted"; that's implied by "attempts were suppressed".
Gabino Gaínza, the captain general of Guatemala, opposed independence, but ultimately moved to support independence once its proponents told him that he could remain as captain general even after independence
I'm going to stop here, for risk of being repetitive. I like the fact that you're not writing a stodgy series of simple sentences. For example, I see this style of writing a lot in other FACs: "Gabino Gainza was the captain general of Guatemala. He opposed independence. Proponents told him he could remain as captain general after independence. Then he supported independence" and it's painful to read. Your flowing style is a pleasure by comparison, but I think you overdo it (at least for my taste). My overall suggestion is to go through the entire text and look for sentences that digress more than one level. For example, the above sentence is fundamentally "Gabino Gaínza initially opposed independence but changed his mind". And then you start hanging additional stuff on that scaffolding. You explain who he is ("the captain general of Guatemala"). And then you expound on why he changed his mind. Either of those would be good, but packing both into the sentence I think becomes overload. As another example, a little later:
Gaínza, who had assumed the political leadership of both Guatemala and the Consultive Junta under the title of Superior Political Chief,[33] was in favor of annexation, as was Bishop Nicolás García Jerez of Nicaragua and the Aycinena clan [es] of Guatemalais basically "Gainza, Bishop Jerez, and the Aycinena clan were all in favor of annexation", but that's wrapped up in so much additional information, by the time I got to the end of the sentence, I was lost. Anyway, I hope that's useful, even if I didn't do a complete review. RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Please ping me when you take this to FAC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)