Talk:Revolt of the Lash

Sources

• primary source
• "The Naval Situation: Foreign Powers," Times (London), 4 March 1911. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Revolt of the Lash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 01:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments

I'll post a review of this interesting-looking article over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is in excellent shape. I have the following comments:

• Is note 'B' necessary?
  • I think it is; there were a few details that I left out, as that level of nuance didn't seem appropriate for the lead. Am happy to reconsider if you think it's a bad idea.
    • As the text links to the article and it's fairly clear that it's a simplified version, I think that it should be omitted: it looks a bit like a comment, and detracts from the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Good argument—I've removed the note! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• "These officers were fond of inflicting corporal punishment" - is "fond" the right word here? It makes it sound like the officers enjoyed this. "Frequently inflicted" perhaps?
  • Fixed.
• "forty-five percent of its authorized personnel (in 1896) " - this is then repeated in the same para
  • Fixed.
• Can more be said about what the planning ahead of the mutiny involved? - it's stated that the mutiny was planned well in advance, but not much further detail is currently provided
  • Added, although the diff is hard to read.
    • Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Do any of the sources discuss how the skills of the crews of the ships improved, and what this meant for the individuals' self-respect and attitudes? There seems to be a story here about the modernisation of the navy leading to the transformation of the crew from a lowly-skilled labouring underclass into what were essentially skilled workers which could be more fully fleshed out.
  • I strongly suspect that info is in A marinha brasileira na era dos encouraçados, 1895–1910, as 'technological advances without accompanying social change' is basically Martins' thesis in six words. However, I don't speak Portuguese (the info in this article was related by a Brazilian editor), so for now, I won't be able to act on this.
    • OK Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• On that topic, as a suggestion for the further development of the article, it might be worth looking through the literature on labour relations for material on this topic.
  • Thanks for the idea! The revolt is surprisingly not well covered in non-naval contexts, but I'm wondering if I'm just not Googling correctly. Have any ideas?
    • Not beyond trawling JSTOR and similar academic databases. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, there's sadly much not there on this directly. Would love to make comparisons, but that'd have to be off-wiki. :-) `Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• "A significant percentage" - could you say "around half" given the numbers discussed in note G? I'd also suggest bringing the content of this note into the body of the article given its importance.
  • Added the 1,500–2,000 out of 4,000 figure.
• "Unfortunately" - seems like editorialising, and isn't necessary
  • Good call, I meant to say "unfortunately for the government" or something similar, but I've just removed it.
• File:Rui barbosa.jpg probably needs to be tagged with {{FoP-Nederland}} or similar
  • Done!
• File:JCandido.JPG needs to be tagged with {{FoP-Brazil}}
  • Done as well.
• Could the process by which the Navy was re-manned be discussed? Did the new sailors enjoy the improved conditions the mutineers had won, or were these pulled back? Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there anything which can be added on this suggestion? Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • {[ping|Nick-D}} My apologies for missing this. Neither Love nor Morgan, the two major sources here, directly address that (which for Morgan actually surprises me, given his thesis). I've added what I can. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
      • @Nick-D: ... I screwed up the ping above. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
        • @The ed17: Sorry I missed this: I'm very pleased to pass this review. And Merry Christmas! Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Nick-D. I've left replies interspersed above and will get to the rest shortly. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Nick-D, I've finished responding to your points. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Typo or Direct Quote?

In the Mutiny section (near the Minas Geraes picture), the blockquote includes the phrase, use and abuse of corporeal punishment continues. I do not have access to the translation used. Can someone check if the source uses 'corporeal', which is incorrect, or uses 'corporal' in which case this is just a typo? If a direct quote from Morgan's book, it should be called out with [sic]; otherwise, it should be corrected to corporal. Please and Thank You, Bitten Peach (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)