Talk:Landless Workers' Movement/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 15:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
I'm sorry for the delay in starting to write down my review of this nomination. The requirements are given in WP:WIAGA.

This is quite a long article, but that has not been the main reason for the delay. At this point in the review, I've no clear idea as to whether this article will make GA-status by the end of this review:
 * It appears to be well referenced (but I've not checked any of the references), so that appears to be a strong "tick in the box" (well in clauses 2 (a) & (b)).
 * The WP:Lead looks to be strongly non-compliant, but I mostly consider the Lead at the end of the article - so it might be fixable during the review. So non-compliant at present with clause 1 (b).
 * It's not clear what the Earlier history of the land question in Brazil until the 1988 Constitution section is doing there. It reads a bit like an essay.
 * Most of the article reads like an essay.

I will continue to review this article. I cannot at this point in the review see any strong grounds for quick failing this nomination. But, again it's not clear whether this article will pass the requirements.

I'm going to start at Earlier history of the land question in Brazil until the 1988 Constitution, work my way to the end of the article and then go back and look at the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Earlier history of the land question in Brazil until the 1988 Constitution -
 * This section has no clear structure and its not yet clear what this section is doing/is_here_for. I will analyse it and try and work out why its here
 * Most of this section is about land reform, but the MST is discussed in the first, part of the fourth paragraph, the fifth and the last paragraph. The next section is called History and this is about the formation of the MST, but some sentences in the second section repeat what is stated in the first section. For example: ... much of the driving force at the early organizing of the MST came from Catholic base communities and The founding process itself was very much connected with Catholic Church base organizations such as ....
 * I think this article would "read better" if the section title was shortened to something like Land reform and the first, fifth and last paragraphs moved into the History section.
 * Much of this section is written like an essay, For example the some of the sentences in this paragraph: Historically, the first statute that regulated landed property in independent Brazil was the Landed Property Act (Lei de Terras) or Law number 601, enacted on September 18, 1850. Being drafted in a process of transition from a colonial administration based on Portuguese feudal law - in which property depended on both Crown's grants (sesmarias) and primogeniture (morgadio) - to a national bourgeois independent Brazilian state, the law established that the standard mode for acquiring landed property was to be by means of a money purchase - either from the State, or for a previous private owner - and as such strongly limited opportunities to exercise squatter's right, therefore favouring the historical concentration of landed property that became one of the hallmarks of modern Brazilian social history (see [7]). are very long. It could easily be improved by splitting some sentences into two:  Historically, t T he first statute that regulated landed property in independent Brazil was the Landed Property Act (Lei de Terras) or Law number 601, enacted on September 18, 1850. Being drafted in a process of transition from a colonial administration based on Portuguese feudal law - in which property depended on both Crown's grants (sesmarias) and primogeniture (morgadio) - to a national bourgeois independent Brazilian state, the law established that the standard mode for acquiring landed property was to be by means of a money purchase - either from the State, or for a previous private owner . - and as such strongly This limited opportunities to exercise squatter's rights, therefore favouring the historical concentration of landed property that became one of the hallmarks of modern Brazilian social history (see [7]).
 * Similar comments apply to other paragraphs in this section.


 * History -
 * The grammar in this section is considerably better than the first, and it is a bit more encyclopaedic. However, there are numerous spelling mistakes - I've corrected some, but more remain uncorrected.
 * This section lacks a WP:NPOV. The first paragraph starts off: The smashing of the peasant leagues ....; the second paragraph has '...the families resisted a blockade imposed by military forces led by an officer notorious for his past experience in counter-insurgency... ; and, the third paragraph has ... However, the more aggressive tactics of the MST allowed it to gather a capital of political legitimacy that soon outshone CONTAG, who was allowed .....
 * Perhaps the first paragraph would fit better in the previous section; and I believe that some of the current paragraphs about the MST should be moved from the first section to here (see comments about the first section).


 * Organizational structure -
 * Most of the second part of the first paragraph is unreferenced. It has various statements that appear to be contentious or open to challenge and so should be referenced.
 * The final sentence in the second paragraph is unreferenced.

I'm stopping the review at this point, and I'm going to an Overall summary. Pyrotec (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * There are numerous problems with spelling and prose, particularly in the Earlier history of the land question in Brazil until the 1988 Constitution section. Some parts read like an essay.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * The Lead is non-compliant, and that was discussed as long ago as the Peer review/Landless Workers' Movement/archive1, in April 2011.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * This article is well referenced, and that is commendable.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * This article is well referenced.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * The Earlier history of the land question in Brazil until the 1988 Constitution section is unfocused and it includes material that perhaps aught to be in the following History section and the two sections have some duplication.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Some sections are non-compliant with WP:NPOV and were flagged as such back in July 2010. The flags were removed in this edit just after the article had been nominated at WP:GAN.
 * 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 provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article needs a good clean up and copy edit. Some sections appear to be fair reasonable, but others lack a neutral viewpoint and clarity.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article needs a good clean up and copy edit. Some sections appear to be fair reasonable, but others lack a neutral viewpoint and clarity.
 * The article needs a good clean up and copy edit. Some sections appear to be fair reasonable, but others lack a neutral viewpoint and clarity.

In view of the numerous "problems" with this nomination, I don't believe that continuing this review in any further and then putting it On Hold to allow time for the "problems" to be addressed is the appropriate way forward. I suggest that this article is submitted for copyediting as the next step. The Lead, the first two sections and re-writting some sections to comply with WP:NPOV are the main problems that need to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have read the review above and think it's quite good. Actually, I also think that the opening section is the main issue. My point, when i worked on it, was - and is - that the history of Brazilian land reform issues predates by at least one century the history of the MST and that the MST article would develop better by supporting itself on a larger article on the history of landed property and land reform movements in Brazil, which, however, despite the abundance of existing literary sources, remains a red link. Therefore, I shall have to do without. Thanks a lotCerme (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)