Talk:Liceu bombing/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 10:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 21:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like it is a well-researched article and, on a cursory glance, seems already close to being a Good Article. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2025

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of reasonable length, with 4,687 words of readable prose.
• The lead is appropriately long at 277 words.
• Authorship is 93.7% from the nominator with contributions from 14 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • The spelling and grammar is generally of a high quality.
   • I am told that the choice is between ", which" or "that" (i.e. whether there is a comma or not), but accept that it may be a local variation. Please correct it if you share that view.
   • I believe it is "as" rather than "than" in "It also killed twice as many people than had died as a result of French anarchist terrorism during the whole 1890s"
   • I also believe it is "charged with" rather than "charged for".
   • I also think there should be commas around the names, as they are subclauses, in "In April 1897, five people were sentenced to death, including the main suspect, Tomàs Ascheri, and his alleged accomplices Joan Alsina, Lluís Mas, Josep Molas and Antoni Nogués.", i.e. "In April 1897, five people were sentenced to death, including the main suspect, Tomàs Ascheri, and his alleged accomplices, Joan Alsina, Lluís Mas, Josep Molas and Antoni Nogués." although I suggest that the sentence may need cleaning up as that looks confusing to me.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • The sources are generally reliable, being a combination of peer-reviewed papers and books published by credible publishers like Cambridge University Press..

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • Spot checks confirm Bray 2022 and Crossland 2021.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 27.5% chance of copyright violation, which means it is unlikely. The highest match is with the article by Crossland. Much of the overlap is titles.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • It seems to cover the topic well. However, there is a list of nine "further reading". Can any of these be included to give additional insights?
   • I also wonder if there is anything in the Spanish literature that could be of interest (recognising this is not a GA requirement).

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

   • The article goes into a lot of detail on some aspects of the programme but is generally compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced, although it relies heavily on one source, Bray 2022. It may be helpful to have more voices.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • Bombacorpus.jpg, Gaudi sagrada terrorist.jpg and Josep Collaso i Gil 1894.jpg lack license tags for Spain. Gaudi sagrada terrorist.jpg also needs clarification in its existing tag.
   • The other images have appropriate CC or PD tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are extensive and appropriate.

@Grnrchst: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on for review Simon! To address your points:

1. I've addressed most of these, but I'm not sure what you're referring to with ", which" or "that", could you clarify?
2. -
3. I can have another look at the further reading, but from what I recall, most of these only included the basic details of the bombing.
4. Bray is the source that has written the most in-depth about the topic, so largely citing him is just a natural consequence of the literature.
5. -
6. I've fixed the PD tag for Josep Collaso, changed the image used for the Corpus Christi bombing (as I wasn't able to verify the authorship of the illustration) and replaced the Sagrada Familia image (found one that is clearly licensed under CC).

Let me know if there's anything more I can do. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: That all looks excellent. Do you want to make any changes based on your further reading or shall I complete the assessment now? simongraham (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simongraham: I added some more information from three of the sources in the further reading. It didn't add anything major, just some minor details. Let me know if there's anything else left after this. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)