Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive6

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 GrahamColm 15:52, 15 September 2012 [1].

May Revolution[edit]

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2012 (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.

All the issues pointed during the previous nominations were addressed by then. This article has been promoted to A-Class by the Military History wikiproject. Cambalachero (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article would benefit greatly from a thorough copyedit--Ykraps (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been several copyedits already. Can you please point any actual actionable concerns? Cambalachero (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Bearing in mind that criterion 1a states, "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"; I found the whole article difficult to read. Many of the sentences are unnecessarily wordy, and indeed, the first 3 sentences I read had problems.
  
  The United States Declaration of Independence from Great Britain in 1776 led criollos (Spanish peoples born in the Americas) to believe that revolution and independence from Spain could be realistic aims.
  
  Why not, "...could become a reality"' or "...was achievable". Also, ‘criollos’ sounds like a proper noun? If it is, it ought to be capitalised.
  
  Between 1775 and 1783, the American patriots of the Thirteen Colonies waged the American Revolutionary War against both the local loyalists and the Kingdom of Great Britain.
  
  We have been told which war in the previous sentence so I would have thought "Between 1775 and 1783, American patriots fought against loyalists and British soldiers" to be sufficient.
  
  "The fact that Spain aided the colonies in their struggle against Britain weakened the idea that it would be a crime to end one's allegiance to the parent state".
  
  I needed to read this sentence carefully to make sense of it. I gather this means that, because Spain had always maintained that breaking allegiance with one’s parental state was a crime, its aid to the rebel colonies was seen as somewhat hypocritical.
  
  "Books from the United States found their way into the Spanish colonies through Caracas, owing to the proximity of Venezuela to the United States and the West Indies".
  
  This sounds like books from the USA found their way to the W. Indies first, then to Caracas and from there into the Spanish colonies. Is that what you meant? Or did you mean, “Books from the West Indies and the United States found their way into the Spanish colonies via Venezuela, which was in close proximity”.
  
  I note some of these issues have been addressed but the whole article is littered with similar examples to the point where it isn't at all 'engaging'. I am sorry if this all sounds rather scathing, it is not meant to be, I am genuinely trying to offer some constructive criticism. It should also be noted that this is my first attempt at a featured article review so you may want to take my comments with a pinch of salt.--Ykraps (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Ykraps on this, I did some and will do some more soon, just juggling a bit much. Plus it is good to step back and re-examine when copyediting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Engaging" does not mean "For dummies", it is right to be concerned with excesive wordiness, but the text should not follow either a pattern "subject does action. stop. suject does action. stop. subject does action. stop." It is needed to provide details and add explanations, specially in a topic like this one, which is not familiar for most English-speaking readers before actually reading it. As for the US, the US declaration of independence and the revolutionary war are related things but not the same thing, both ones should be mentioned. Cambalachero (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If you really want to treat us all like dummies, you can always pipelink fought against to American revolutionary war or use explanatory footnotes to give more information.--Ykraps (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would go against the Principle of least astonishment. Cambalachero (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reading through now and copyediting as I go. Please revert any changes I make which accidentally change the meaning. I will jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes but need to prioritise some other work currently. The prose does need some work. Not insurmountable but not negligible either. Back later...

I will note that I used quotations marks in "May Week" at the intro according to WP:WORDSASWORDS (I did not use italics because the paragraph already had words in italics, and didn't want to abuse). It is also unneeded to fix links to redirects into links to the proper article name, specially if it is a piped link and the visible text remains the same. But feel free to continue or suggest things if needed. Cambalachero (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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