Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive1

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:21, 3 May 2011 [1].

May Revolution[edit]

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a key event in the history of Argentina, and I have worked a lot with it. I worked first with Argentine books, as those made the most comprehensive study of this topic (not surprising), but I checked some books in English as well. I have also trimmed down some parts to related articles, but trying to keep this as an article that could be understood on its own, having in mind that most readers from outside Argentina or even South America are unlikely to have even a clue on who were this people or the events described. Cambalachero (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sourcing at this time

"Two antagonistic factions emerged: the hacendados (owners of haciendas) wanted free trade so they could sell their products abroad; and the merchants, who benefited from the high prices of smuggled imports, opposed free trade because prices would come down." - source?
"Álzaga was not freed, but his sentence was changed to house arrest." - source? Check for other statements needing sources - there appear to be many of these
Per WP:LAYOUT, Bibliography should appear after References
Need more specific publisher locations than "United States of America" and "Great Britain"
Date for Abad de Santillán?
ISBN given for Crow leads to the 4th edition - if this is what was used, should note that. Check for others
Check ISBN formatting on Luna 1994
Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
References to multiple pages should use "pp."
Ref 28: formatting
Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first in References
In general, reference and bibliography formatting needs to be much more consistent

I've only gotten about a third of the way through the bibliography, but this seems to need major improvements to qualify for FA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I don't understand the 11º: all references cite the authors by the last name, and I did not find any use first name by mistake. Perhaps you are confusing a Spanish last name as a first name? Cambalachero (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. I fixed all the following.
"series of revolutionary events": "series of events".
"developments in Spain": WP:EGG problem here, that is, you're saying one thing but linking to another.
"Delegates decided to deny recognition to the Council of Regency in Spain; to end Cisneros' mandate as Viceroy, since the government that appointed him no longer existed; and to establish a junta to govern in his place.": See WP:Checklist#series. Also, it's better to do without semicolons in a series if you can, and it's better not to discuss states of mind if discussing actions will suffice. So: "Delegates denied recognition to the Council of Regency in Spain and established a junta to govern in place of Cisneros, since the government that appointed him Viceroy no longer existed." Also note that junta was an EGG problem.
"considered as one": considered one
" declaration of independence": EGG problem.
Not yet. The prose is going to need more work than I have time to give it. See if you approve of the changes, and see if you can find a copy editor. If this FAC doesn't work, I hope you'll consider running this through through the A-class review of the military history wikiproject. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done the "state of mind" issue in some cases, those that are gramatically redundant (such as "decided to do X" instead of "did X"). Most other, however, should be kept. In most cases to say what was done is not enough, it's needed to explain as well the why and how of what was done, and in most cases this is done though the opinions and perceptions of the involved actors. If we strip the article of such explanations and write it as a timeline of events, it would become very hard to understand, as many actions would seem contradictory or out of character if not contextualized or explained.

I will check the links tomorrow, but have in mind that linking junta (Peninsular War) when we mention that the idea was to establish a Junta is not at all incorrect, as it is a technical term whose meaning may be misleading. An unaware reader that reads that a government was a "Junta" would immediately think in a military junta, but this is not the case. The Spanish juntas of the peninsular war waged wars but were not military in themselves. In the one that came out of all this, for instance, only 2 of 9 members were military, all the others were civilians. Cambalachero (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's more discussion at our guideline, WP:EGG. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the links, removing some and rewriting others, so that the links link to articles named that way, or the difference is merely grammatical or for disambiguation (such as "republican" for "republic" or "Ferdinand VII" for "Ferdinand VII of Spain"). However, there is a pair that need clarification, the sentences "There are [[Historiography of the May Revolution#Factual concerns|many interpretations]] of the motives for this action. and "However, there is no unanimous view among historians about the [[Historiography of the May Revolution#Factual concerns|authorship]] of the content of the document.". They are written that way as content forks of info that used to be here. If they are not acceptable I may write specific articles for the one-day Junta or the document with signatures, but I'm not very sure of their independent notability. Cambalachero (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The International causes section is too detailed. The American, French and Industrial Revolutions are all well known by many, and there' no need to elaborate so much. For eg: the names of the Enlightenment figures, the details about the American Revolution and Napoleon can all be trimmed down. Also check for redundancy: both International and National Causes sections talk of the Portugese royal family fleeing to Brazil.—indopug (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have reduced the information to more basic facts, and mentioned the portuguese nobility in only one section. It may be less clear in text that the crowing of Joseph in Spain and the escape of the Portuguese were part of the same conflict, but if that's already common knowledge, we can leave it that way. Cambalachero (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Image captions (i'll try to check more content later)

Captions with incomplete sentences shouldn't end with period (see Wikipedia:Captions).
Caption for Cornelio_Saavedra_-_1810.jpg is pretty vague and doesn't help understanding the article. Could you rephrase the caption, either with his role in the events or with a clearer summary of his actual position? (i realize, it can be difficult in a short caption) GermanJoe (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added periods to the full sentences captions (a noun and a verb) and removed them from the noun captions, and reformulated Saavedra's and a pair of others. More than stating that his position "prevailed", I stated that he got the majority of votes, which is more specific and details in a few words Saavedra's importance in the event. As for his role, surely his leadership is implicit from that. Cambalachero (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments after a read-through

Lead - First sentence "The May Revolution ... of Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay" is a bit too long and too detailed to be really "inviting" to the article. ==> Suggest rephrase "The May Revolution (Spanish: Revolución de Mayo) was a series of events that took place from May 18 to May 25, 1810, in Buenos Aires, capital of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, a former Spanish colony in South America." (level of details of later successor states not needed in lead).
Is the event commemorated only in Argentina or in other countries as well? Maybe worth a brief mention in "Legacy".
"In 1808 the Spanish king...abdicated in favor of Napoleon ... Joseph Bonaparte." ==> Use "Napoleon I" or "Napoleon Bonaparte" at first mention to avoid confusions.
"Viceroy Cisneros tried to conceal... an open cabildo" ==> Suggest trimming "Viceroy Cisneros tried to conceal the news in order to maintain the political status quo, but a group of criollo lawyers and military officials organized an open cabildo"
International causes - Remove "They chose a republican form of government, rather than a monarchy.", it doesn't fit into flow of thoughts (and republican ideals are explained later anyway).
"Liberal ideas reached the church" - which church? (large parts of the French clergy were sympathetic to monarchy). Please clarify.
"...trade only with their own metropoli." ==> wrong plural (i think) - maybe just homeland?
"Until then, Spain had been a staunch ally of France against Britain, but at this point they changed sides, and were allied with Britain against France." ==> use singular throughout for Spain.
National causes - "A small party of criollos, composed of Castelli, Beruti, Vieytes, Belgrano, and others, supported this project." What makes the named members notable? Try to always add full names at first mention, if available. Also make sure to introduce major figures with a brief description (title, rank, occupation, role in event - whatever works best).
Prelude - "The Royal Audiencia ... and not by the Spanish king himself." ==> reorder facts in chronological order: "The Royal Audiencia of Buenos Aires did not allow his return to Buenos Aires and elected Santiago de Liniers, acclaimed as a popular hero, as an interim Viceroy. This was an unprecedented action, the first time that a Spanish viceroy was deposed by local government institutions, and not by the Spanish king himself. But the appointment was ratified later by King Charles IV of Spain.[26]
Liniers government - "The rivalry ...were exiled to El Carmen." ==> What or where is El Carmen? Add a brief descriptive remark. (El Carmen has a disambig page for linking, but probably no further info).
cabildo or Cabildo - In section 'Monday May 21', "the Cabildo" is acting and compiling a guest list before the open cabildo is even opened. "cabildo" is apparently used with different meanings, can you add a small note explaining the different usages?
Historical perspectives - "For example, Manuel Moreno...to justify himself to his sons." ==> Possible subjective interpretations of intentions need direct reliable sources. Not saying, those statements are not correct, but they could be challenged and should be cited.
"The first remarkable historiographical ..." ==> "remarkable" is a bit of a value judgement, can you provide a independent source for it?
"By the time of the World Wars, liberal authors attempted to impose an ultimate and unquestionable historical perspective, though Ricardo Levene and the Academia Nacional de la Historia[133] which kept most perspectives of Mitre." ==> ",though Ricardo ...." misses a word or two - no complete sentence.
Revolutionary purposes - Second half of first paragraph after "The purpose of ..." needs one or two cites. Same for last sentence of 3rd paragraph and end of last paragraph (even in general paragraphs try to have atleast one citation at the end).
Legacy - needs a few more sources, especially in 3rd and 4th paragraph for the provided facts.

After all that nitpicking some positive things :). I really like, how you help the reader through a complex and (for the layman) confusing topic. Maybe sometimes a bit too detailed, but the background information to understand the context is always there. After adding a few sources and some improvements in prose i think this article is on a good way. GermanJoe (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most done, with some exceptions that may need clarification (and others which are fixed as requested, but need clarification as well).

First, the lead should clarify from the very begining where did all this took place. I mentioned the countries because I'm not sure if the mere mention of Buenos Aires is self-evident. It is so for me, as well as any mention of events taking place in Montevideo, Santiago, Rio, Asunción, La Paz, Lima or other important South American cities, but it may not be so clear for readers from other places that may be familiar with only the US or European geography (I once met someone who needed the clarification of whenever Montevideo was a city or a man).
Second, no, the event is only conmemorated in Buenos Aires. The other countries commemorate events that took place within their own modern frontiers; thus the bicentenial of Bolivia was in 2009, Argentina and Chile (with their own revolution) in 2010, and Paraguay in just 10 days from now. However, I haven't seen a source on the topic "national days across South America" or similar to cite, so I should avoid the topic to avoid the risk of synthesis or original research.
As for Napoleon, that was discussed by many users a pair of months ago at Talk:Napoleon, and it was settled in that the mere name "Napoleon" is commonly understood to refer to that Napoleon, without needing clarification (in any case, the text is already explicit in that Joseph Bonaparte is Napoleon's brother, if someone mistakes him for Napoleon for the presence of the "Bonaparte" last name, that someone should pay more attention).
I have clarified the "church" issue, it was because the book I checked at that point was not very clear in that detail: it talked about the Spanish church, as an expansion of the ideas of the French Revolution, but without noting that it wasn't talking about the French Revolution itself anymore.
The "metropoli" thing was a mistake that I fixed: that's the name in Spanish, and there's a word written that way in English, but the correct translation I sought was metropole.
"Cabildo" has three possible meanings. It can be either the institution itself, or the sum of the people that compose it; but that shouldn't need clarifications. It is self-evident for any reader that the Cabildo was an institution, and any institution may be mentioned in those ways. The third one, which I explained at first mention, is the open cabildo process, an extraordinary session.
Finally, the use of the word "remarkable" is not gratuitous, it is because the historians cited where the first who where actually uninvolved with the events and attempted to check documentation, organize facts, verify details, etc; in short, use a historian method rather than the "this is what I remember and saw" documents written so far. Cambalachero (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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