Talk:Economic history of Argentina/GA1: Difference between revisions
→Initial comments: adding comments |
→Initial comments: +++ |
||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
* '''Interwar period''' - |
* '''Interwar period''' - |
||
::Hi Pyrotec, and thank you for taking the time to review this article. I agree with most of your comments so far, and in particular with your criticism of the lead. Large swathes of this section, namely the parts outlining the opinions of different scholars on the causes of Argentina's troubles, were added just days ago; perhaps they should be moved to a separate section. Adding dates to the 1810–1829 should prove easy (Cambalachero might be able to help with the phrases quoting Norberto Galasso's books), but solving the issues with the "Colonial economy" section might be harder, because relatively little has been written about Argentina's economy during that period, and much of it is not freely available on the internet.--[[User:Underlying lk|eh bien mon prince]] ([[User talk:Underlying lk|talk]]) 13:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:12, 18 June 2012
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 14:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Initial comments
This article has been sitting around for a long time at WP:GAN (in round figures, five months), and its also quite a long article, so for these two reasons I decided to review it.
I think that this article could make GA-status this time time. On the plus side, it appears to be comprehensive (its long); it's well illustrated and well referenced. On the minus side, I don't believe that the WP:Lead is compliant (in addition, its not easy to read); and I don't like the Colonial economy section, most of that was stating what Argentina was not. I would have expected an encyclopaedia, and that is what wikipedia is, to state what a "thing" is, not what a "thing" is not. On that basis, not not going to "quick fail" this article: I will review it.
I'm now start a full review of this article, section by section. I normally leave the WP:Lead until last and I will do the same here. However, in this review I'm going to start at the Post-independence transition section, work my way to the end, then do Colonial economy and then the Lead.
As this is a long article, this part of the review is likely to take me several days.
I'm quite happy for the nominator and/or other editors to post comments, questions, etc. If they relate to a particular section of the review, I'm happy for them to immediately follow my comments. Pyrotec (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Post-independence transition -
- 1810–1829 -
- Time is rather "difficultly" addressed, if at all. The subsection title is "1810–1829", but the first paragraph has no dates; the second paragraph starts "During this period, ..", but there are discussions covering 1810-1850 and 1850-1870, and the third paragraph goes back to start at "between 1812 and 1816".
- I think that "time" needs to be added to the first paragraph. This could be done with minimal effort in the first sentence of the first paragraph by, adding for example, "With independence, in 1818, an era in which commerce was controlled by a small group of peninsular merchants came to an end.". The same could be done for "The first government" and the first and second Triumvirates.
- Sorry to come back to this again. The second paragraph states off: "During this period", but it is unclear as to what that means. The subsection title is "1810–1829", but most of this paragraph is covering six decades of growth (in cattle exports) from 1810 to 1870, but it ends on Terms of Trade from 1810 and 1825.
- In the third paragraph Battle of Cepeda needs a date.
- Placemarker - provinces to be added later, or removed).
- I think the fifth paragraph should say "lack of an Argentine merchant fleet ....".
- The seventh paragraph has a {{says who}} flag and the last paragraph has {{citation needed}} flag.
- 1829–1870 -
....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looks OK.
- Export-led boom -
....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looks OK.
- 1870–1890, Baring crisis to World War I -
- Looks OK.
- Interwar period -
- Hi Pyrotec, and thank you for taking the time to review this article. I agree with most of your comments so far, and in particular with your criticism of the lead. Large swathes of this section, namely the parts outlining the opinions of different scholars on the causes of Argentina's troubles, were added just days ago; perhaps they should be moved to a separate section. Adding dates to the 1810–1829 should prove easy (Cambalachero might be able to help with the phrases quoting Norberto Galasso's books), but solving the issues with the "Colonial economy" section might be harder, because relatively little has been written about Argentina's economy during that period, and much of it is not freely available on the internet.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)