Talk:Spanish American wars of independence/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DCI (talk · contribs) 17:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Quite an interesting article, and certainly a well-written one. Some quick checks of the lead resulted in this:
  • The first sentence: The Spanish American wars of independence were the numerous wars against Spanish rule in Spanish America that took place during the early 19th century, from 1808 until 1829, and which were initiated by the Napoleonic French invasion of Spain. I would change it to this:
    • The Spanish American wars of independence were the numerous wars against Spanish rule in Spanish America that took place during the early 19th century, after the invasion of Spain by forces of the French Empire. I found the phrase "Spanish rule in Spanish America" a little repetitive, but, if you think it's the most accurate way to describe it, I'd leave it the way it is.

I agree it's repetitive, and I would write "in America," but I often find that when I write something like that, someone else edits it to "Latin America" or something similar. There are many people out there for whom "America" only means the U.S. Using "Americas" might solve this. TriniMuñoz (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• • The second sentence is somewhat confusing, but I am not sure how to rephrase it.
  • These conflicts can be characterized both as civil wars and wars of national liberation, since, on the one hand, the majority of the combatants on both sides were Spanish Americans, and on the other, the goal of one group of belligerents was the independence of the Spanish colonies in the Americas. The war in Europe and the resulting absolutist restoration ultimately convinced the Spanish Americans of the need to establish independence from the mother country, so various revolutions broke out in Spanish America.
    • I understand this one, but it could be clarified a little by tweaking it. A way that might work:
      • These conflicts have been characterized both as civil wars and as wars of national liberation, since, while the majority of combatants were Spanish Americans, the goal of one group of belligerents was the independence of the Spanish colonies in the Americas. The faction seeking independence acted after they learned of the Napoleon's invasion of Spain.

Maybe this section could be expanded by a sentence or two to clarify it. The historiography is now arriving to the conclusion that the idea of independence evolves after the French invasion, rather than it being a pre-held idea. (Individual exceptions can be found, like Francisco de Miranda, but the majority of the population, or even a sizable minority, did not hold this belief.) TriniMuñoz (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I'd take out the parentheses in the third paragraph and make that a separate sentence on the Brazilian separation from Portugal.
  • The last sentence confused me a little. I think it would make more sense to say that "a more direct cause of the Spanish American wars of independence were the unique developments in the Kingdom of Spain during this period."

• I shall make some surface edits to the rest of the document, and shall then add more comments. I'd like to reiterate what I said above: the article seems quite well-done. DCItalk 18:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• What do you think about briefly describing some of the other Atlantic revolutions in the Historical Background section?

• Section Social tension probably does not have enough citations that would verify the claims made in the paragraph. Of course, they're true, but sentences that claim something had a "great impact" on the war should reference a reliable source.

• From section Royalist Ascendancy; Royalist Military: The American militias reflected the racial make-up of the local population. For example, in 1820 the royalist army in Venezuela had 843 white (español), 5,378 Casta and 980 Indigenous soldiers.
  • Am I correct to infer that there were 843 Europeans, 5,378 Hispanic Americans (included in the casta system), and 980 indigenous people?

The term españoles includes white Spanish Americans. These people are also called Criollos. I could make that clearer. The castas are mixed-race people. The numbers here refers to the official army in Venezuela, including units that were originally part of the Expeditionary Force sent in 1815. TriniMuñoz (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Is the word "militia" intended, or is "military" the one supposed to be used? "Military" seems to make more sense, as armies and militias are similar but distinct concepts, but seem to describe the same thing here. I'm only asking in case there's a reason for it to remain the way it is.

"Militia" is used on purpose here, because it refers to militias. Militias comprised an important part of the fighting forces, in addition to the official army. In many areas, militias were the bulk of the fighting forces. As surprising as it might sound, the formal military was very small during the colonial period. TriniMuñoz (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Just something I noticed: maybe this is not correct, but there seem to be quite a few semicolons in the article. I'd use these sparingly, as there are other, smoother ways to rephrase sentences that we can use.

• Despite the length of the article, I would advise you not to overlink, especially when it comes to common words like "Chile," "Cuzco," and "independentists." The latter in particular is linked to multiple articles, including "independence" and "separatism."

• Check for minor grammar and spelling errors, which can make reading less smooth. I have found several, but they are not serious (typos, probably).

Checklist

Hopefully, the suggestions above aren't overwhelming. I'd be glad to help with any fixing-up you want to do. Here is the checklist for GA, however, and my commentary. If we can add some more citations and double-check for grammar/spelling again, I'll pass it for GA as soon as possible.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is an extremely well-done article, even if my comments above suggest otherwise. They may be of use when doing an A-class review at the Military History WikiProject, which I strongly encourage you to do.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The writing is clear in most places. I would watch for typos, though.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources are quite reliable, and there is no evidence of original research. I would definitely like to see more inline citations, especially in the theory-based paragraphs, and this should be fixed before the article goes any higher. However, they are no obstacle in a GA review.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is no indication of bias.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article definitely deserves GA status, and probably A-class. I hope that you continue working on your valued contributions to Wikipedia.