Talk:Spain in Our Hearts/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 18:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria All of my suggestions are up for discussion. Once complete, I'll be claiming points for this review in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Lead
 * "Author Adam Hochschild knew several..." - He's already been introduced, so his last name is all that's needed here.


 * The lead calls the lukewarm review "one of the few", and the Critical response section calls it "rare". I may have missed it, but do any of the sources support this adjective? If not, I'd omit them and let the "generally well-received" phrase do the work.


 * Background and development
 * I'm not sure the sentence on the title's derivation is worth a full subsection, but will leave it up to you.
 * Content
 * no concern
 * Critical response
 * "moving[12][20][13] narrative" - the refs should be in numerical order. There are five instances of this in the section.


 * "the Republic's cause.[14][23][24][25][26]" - I think a long train of citations can impair reading, especially in the middle of a sentence. When possible, I like to combine them (see ref 56 and 57 on Lazarus (comics), for example). Since they're all used just once in the article, refs 23-26 seem like good candidates for this. It's up to you, though. I was told once that this practice is "lazy".


 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * no concern
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * no concern
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no cocern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * no concern - one high return caused by a lengthy quote that is property attributed and cited in the article.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * no concern
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no cocern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * no concern
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The infobox image needs WP:ALTTEXT describing what the cover looks like.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Review is on hold, pass pending response to the notes given above.

Thanks for doing this review. Hope I've sufficiently addressed the above issues. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)