Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now completed a very quick read of this article. It appears to be well referenced (but I've not checked any), well illustrated, readable and comprehensive, so it appears to have a good change of making GA by the end of this review. Consequently, a "quick fail" is not appropriate here.

I'm now going to go through the article in a bit more depth, starting at the Early life section and finishing with the WP:Lead. This is likely to take at least a day or so. Note: at this stage I'm reviewing against WP:WIAGA and I will be mostly concentration on any "problems" that appear as I go through the sections. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Early life -
  • unnamed subsection -

• Looks compliant.

• • Military career in Europe -

• Looks compliant.

• South America -
  • Argentina -
    • unnamed sub-subsection -

• Looks compliant.

• • • San Lorenzo, Army of the North, Governor of Cuyo & Crossing of the Andes -

...stopping at this point. To be continued later. Pyrotec (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• These four sub-subsections look to be compliant.

• • Chile -
    • Battle of Chacabuco, Patria Nueva, Battle of Cancha Rayada -

• These three sub-subsections look to be compliant.

• • • Battle of Maipú -

• Looks compliant.

• • Peru & Guayaquil conference -

• These two subsections look to be compliant.

• Later life -

...stopping at this point. To be continued later. Pyrotec (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks compliant.

• Remains, Legacy & Lead -

• These three sections look to be compliant.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive & well illustrated article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Yes, much of it is from Galasso (2000), but other references are also used.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   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:

   Well illustrated with relevant and captioned images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to award this article GA-status.

It does not appear to have gone through WP:PR, so I would suggest that as the next step. I also think that this article could have potential at WP:FAC.

Congratulations on having produced a "fine" article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]