Talk:José de San Martín/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've now completed a very quick read of this article. It appears to be well referenced (but I've not checked any), well illustrated, readable and comprehensive, so it appears to have a good change of making GA by the end of this review. Consequently, a "quick fail" is not appropriate here.

I'm now going to go through the article in a bit more depth, starting at the Early life section and finishing with the WP:Lead. This is likely to take at least a day or so. Note: at this stage I'm reviewing against WP:WIAGA and I will be mostly concentration on any "problems" that appear as I go through the sections. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Early life -
 * unnamed subsection -
 * Looks compliant.


 * Military career in Europe -
 * Looks compliant.


 * South America -
 * Argentina -
 * unnamed sub-subsection -
 * Looks compliant.

...stopping at this point. To be continued later. Pyrotec (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * San Lorenzo, Army of the North, Governor of Cuyo & Crossing of the Andes -
 * These four sub-subsections look to be compliant.


 * '''Chile -
 * Battle of Chacabuco, Patria Nueva, Battle of Cancha Rayada -
 * These three sub-subsections look to be compliant.


 * Battle of Maipú -
 * Looks compliant.


 * Peru & Guayaquil conference -
 * These two subsections look to be compliant.

...stopping at this point. To be continued later. Pyrotec (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Later life -
 * Looks compliant.


 * Remains, Legacy & Lead -
 * These three sections look to be compliant.

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria A comprehensive & well illustrated article
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Yes, much of it is from Galasso (2000), but other references are also used.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated with relevant and captioned images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated with relevant and captioned images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to award this article GA-status.

It does not appear to have gone through WP:PR, so I would suggest that as the next step. I also think that this article could have potential at WP:FAC.

Congratulations on having produced a "fine" article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)