Talk:San Esteban (1554 shipwreck)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Should leave some comments today and will finish the review tomorrow. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 13:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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:

Lead

 * "Almost all the others died of thirst or starvation, or were killed by hostile local people" - weren't they Native Americans?
 * Changed to Karankawa Indians.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Complies per WP:LEAD and meets the GA criteria as it summarises the article well.

16th century

 * "The fleet had a difficult outbound voyage, suffering from bad weather, pirates and accidents." - suffering from pirates? How about something like "suffering from bad weather, accidents and 'skirmishes' from pirates"? Or something similar??
 * Good point, changed as suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "It was said that a priest in Mexico" - should Mexico be referred to as New Spain in this article?
 * Well-spotted!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am going to change that back to Mexico. That is what the source says, and it consistently uses "New Spain" elsewhere. "Mexico" was the Aztec name for the valley that held the city of Tenochtitlan. The Spanish used "Mexico" for the valley and the city. They used "New Spain" for their whole territory from Panama to California. Presumably the priest was in Mexico city. Just a minor quibble. I really appreciate the time taken to review the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

20th century

 * "Pewter objects from England were found and stoneware from Cologne" - this should be changed to either Cologne, Germany or just Germany?
 * I'll add Germany just for the geographically challenged among us :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted
Not even going to put this on hold because the concerns are not significant! This article clearly meets the GA criteria as it is. The prose is excellent, the article is very comprehensive and all the references (including citations) meet the GA criteria. Couldn't find anything obstructing the GA criteria, so it seems right to promote it now. You may want to address those concerns if you wish, but those were just questions that does not affect the article in any way. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 13:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)