Talk:Portuguese Renaissance/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Closing review
[edit]This article has a substantial amount of good information on its topic, and also a pleasure to read. However, I feel it still needs significant work in some areas before it can be passed as a GA.
- 1a. (Full descriptions of the criteria here) The article still needs some copyediting; I corrected a few errors (see history) but haven't done a thorough check. If you'd like help with this, you can put in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests.
- 1b. The lead needs to be rewritten per WP:LEAD to summarize major aspects of the article: sciences, humanities, etc.
- 2b. While parts of this article are well-sourced, other large sections of the article are unsourced. Most notably, value judgments and interpretations need to be sourced: "Portugal's unique ability to interact and colonize other peoples", "an incredible flourishing of culture, arts, and technology", "considered one of the most emblematic pieces of the Portuguese Renaissance", " are some of the most famous examples of the Manueline style, and Portuguese Renaissance architecture in a whole", "The Portuguese Renaissance was a golden age for literary works in Portugal", "This type of novel was best personified in", etc.
In other cases, I'm not sure the given sources support the claims. Does this support the claim that " the Portuguese Renaissance was largely separate from other European Renaissances and instead was incredibly important in opening Europe to the unknown and bringing a more worldly view to those European Renaissances"? Other sources seem of questionable reliability, like this self-published essay.[1]
- 4. The value judgments noted above also raise some neutrality issues. Statements about something's importance, incredibleness, etc. usually shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice, but in a phrase like "what scholar Fatima Ramos called 'an incredible flourishing'"
Though I'm not listing the article for GA at this time, I hope you won't take any of these suggestions as discouragement. On the contrary, I found this a pleasure to read and I'd love to see it get to GA status! I hope you'll revise based on the above recommendations and renominate soon. Just let me know if you have any questions, or if there's another way I can help. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)