Talk:Hospitaller colonization of the Americas/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
No spelling or grammar errors, no copyvios.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
There are two citations in the lead - this isn't unacceptable, but in this case the content cited in the lead is explained in the article. So move the citations to the portions of the article that deal with the effective autonomy of Poincy.
Y Done.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Reference section provided, I just have a question about consistency.
Y Done.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Accepting offline sources AGF. Adequate citations provided, but I just have a few comments below regarding inline placement of a few sources, and I found a dead link.
Y Done.

C. No original research:
All content is verifiable to reliable sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
I've had trouble verifying the status of two of the images.
Y Done.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold due to the issues below.
Y Issues resolved, passed.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments

Citations:

This, citation No. 7 in the article, is a dead link. Could you provide either the new link or an archived version of the old link. If it is an online version of a printed journal article, than you can also just list it without a link.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This line: "He built strong and impressive fortifications on Saint Christopher[4] along with churches, roads, a hospital, and his own grand residence.[5]" The first citation can go to the end of the sentence. Doing so would improve the flow of the sentence. Also, with this sentence: "Shortly before his death in 1660, Poincy signed a treaty of peace with the English and the Carib people of Saint Christopher,[5] but the peace did not last." Is the comment about the peace being only temporary in the same source as the citation? If so, then move the citation to the end. If not, than provide another and put both citations at the end of the sentence.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bare link

http://jcb.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/s/v3d505 is given as a bare URL. Needs to be formatted according to the rest of the reference section.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The final reference, Boucher, who is not directly cited in the article, should be put under a subheading such as "additional sources" or "additional references." I think that is the easiest way of handling that without re-working the section into distinct citation and reference sections.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:Antoine De Paule (1623-1636).jpg and File:CharlesHuaultMontmagny.jpg I'm unsure about. Both are tagged as public domain because the author died over 70 years ago. However, that is not enough to qualify for the English Wikipedia, which needs them to be over 100 years. Normally, I would fix this myself, but I am having trouble verifying the status of the images. The second looks like it was done in the 17th century, which would certainly qualify as public domain, but I want to be sure. The first, Antoine De Paule (1623-1636).jpg is a scan from a book. Is either the book, or the image contained in the book, public domain? I can't find anything about when that image was created.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment Overall, this is a high-quality article. I apologize for taking so long to complete this review, I've had a busy several days with work.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It has been over seven days since this review. However, I left a message for the nominator the other day, and they explained that they had been away from Wikipedia for a bit, and they requested some time to address the issues above. I affirmed this request.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I have made changes to the lead and the references. Regarding the images, I have some questions. File:CharlesHuaultMontmagny.jpg comes from this site, which states, "Fait partie du domaine public. Merci de toujours mentionner la source." What must I do to the image file to reflect this? As for File:Antoine De Paule (1623-1636).jpg, I cannot find the source. The image is tangential to the article and I can simply remove it if necessary. Fishal (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, so the first source is public domain, that makes it acceptable to use. I'll see if I can find anything on the second file. I have work today, but tomorrow morning I should be able to look into this more. Thanks for your efforts here, Fishal.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anything on that image, so it is best to leave it out. You have removed the image, and addressed my issues with citation placement and the dead link, so I see nothing hindering this article from a GA-status listing. Promoted.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]