Talk:Revolt of the Comuneros/GA1

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

I will review this article over this weekend.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments
As per the comment on the article's talk page I'll be focusing on the article's prose. I should note at the outset that I have no prior knowledge at all of the topic covered by the article.

My comments on prose are:
 * "Discontent had been brewing for years before the Revolt of the Comuneros." - in which geographic areas? (all of Spain or just Castile?). The rest of this para is about Spain's economic and social situation and doesn't mention any discontent.
 * "urban elites" and a "budding middle class" seem to be quite different things, yet the article seems to say that they were one and the same
 * "former Muslims who converted" - needs 'had' before 'converted' and what religion it was they'd converted to (Catholicism I assume)
 * Is it 'a Cortes' or 'the Cortes'? - both are used
 * The sentence which begins with 'The city council had been at the forefront of protesting' should probably be split into two sentences given it covers several different topics
 * "especially after the arrival of legislators who voted "yes" to the taxes Charles had asked for." - I think a 'had' is needed before "yes"
 * The single paragraph sections in the 'Expansion of the Revolt' section could be combined
 * Should 'comunero', 'royalist', 'royal army' and 'royal government' be capitalised? ('Royalist' is capitalised in the infobox but not in the body of the article)
 * "Acuña departed for Toledo in February, a small troop under his command" - what's meant by 'a small troop' here? (do you mean a Troop or a small force of soldiers?)

Other comments:
 * The article's three endnotes are currently uncited and require references
 * The caption to the painting of Queen Joanna states that she "had no power whatsoever" yet the article later states that "The comuneros' attempt to use Queen Joanna for legitimacy did not bear fruit, as she blocked their initiatives and refused to sign any edicts" which suggests that she had some power, if only in a negative sense

Thanks for looking at the article! Replies:
 * All of Spain. I hope that's clear from the second sentence which refers to Spain; I think it might be too repetitious to end two consecutive sentences with "in Spain," but if you think there's a good rephrase, feel free to edit it in.
 * Yes, the urban elites pretty much were the "budding middle class" for this time period. The countryside was peasants and lords, since land was the only route to wealth there; the "minor nobility" are their own social faction basically and are the closest thing to a "middle class," but not really.  It is only "budding" so the middle class was comparatively small.
 * Let's try "who had converted to Christianity," as Luther had only posted the 95 Theses 2 years earlier and Protestantism didn't really exist yet.
 * Both. "A Cortes was required to raise taxes" = basically you have to call a Congress, a session of Parliament, etc.  A specific Cortes, however, would be The Cortes, generally identified by city (The Cortes of Avila, The Second Continental Congress, etc.).
 * Done.
 * Done.
 * This one I'm going to politely disagree with you on. There was a lot happening in this stage, but in different areas - having one big section would result in something rather disjointed.  With section headers, it's very clear at a glance that there's a blockade going on, meetings in various spots, provocative incidents, etc. and where exactly they are described.  I think it's clearer that way.
 * In general, I think not, though it can be argued. Sources aren't consistent here either, everybody uses their own system.  I removed the capitalization from the infobox for consistency.
 * A troop is a small force of soldiers, as the wikilinked article notes? Don't see what you're getting at...
 * A 'troop' is a unit of a set number of personnel, so a 'small troop' is a bit confusing (eg, was this part of a troop, an under-strength troop or just a small body of men?). I guess the issue is whether you mean an exact troop or not. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's a precise number, no, I meant only a small body of men. The comuneros weren't all that organized; charismatic leaders came and went and rallied troops loyal to them personally.  Any synonym suggestions, if troop is an issue?  "Force" maybe, I guess. SnowFire (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Force' or 'group' would work. Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Endnotes: The first and third endnotes are parts of the sections that link to them, so basically the references there apply. I've replicated the relevant refs in the endnotes for clarity.  The second endnote...  well, it seems somebody redirected Junta (terminology), but this is mostly a clear-up of language differences between English and Spanish, since people who know "junta" in English may not realize that it means something fairly benign literally, and only acquired negative connotations recently.  I don't have a good reference for this at the moment, but I linked it to the wiktionary article "Junta" where it makes clear that there are two different meanings.  Hopefully that will suffice (though I'll keep an eye out for a better reference, too.)
 * You are correct, but I don't think the caption is misleading. To be precise, she had no power as queen with King Charles.  The comuneros, by attempting to make her the sole monarch, perversely gave her power - the power to undermine them somewhat by being fussy.  I think this is too minor a distinction to spend extra words on.

Thanks again for the review. SnowFire (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only issue outstanding relevant to the GA criteria was the references for the end notes, so I'll pass this (I'm comfortable with note b) not being referenced for GA level, though I'd suggest adding a reference before this goes back to FAC). Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: