Talk:Juan José Castelli/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 13:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: Cambalachero

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is good. Copyright is not violated, so far as I can tell.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The organization is good, the lede is excellent, and the MoS is followed throughout.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References section is good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sourcing seems fine.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not a problem.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not a problem.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are legitimately in the public domain in the United States.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images and captions are appropriate.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passes all requirements.

I am in the process of reviewing this article, and it's fascinating, but I have a preliminary question: Do you have access to the three sources used, Galasso, Luna, and National...? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I have the books at home. If any reference needs further clarification, I can cite the paragraph being referenced if needed. Cambalachero (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, that's encouraging. I did a search for English-language sources of information for Castelli, and I'm amazed at how few there are. He was an important figure! Once this reaches GA status, this may end up being the most accurate and comprehensive resource on him in English. That'll be quite an accomplishment. My review is ongoing... – Quadell ^(talk) 15:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is already in very good shape. I just have a few relatively minor suggestions for improvement. Once these are met, I feel confident this will make GA status. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Issues

• 1a: I have made various edits to the article for clarity and consistency, and to improve the prose. If any of these cause problems or introduce errors, feel free to let me know or just revert my changes.

• 1a: "He was a fellow student of men who would later have influence in the public life of South America, including..." Since Mariano Medrano does not have a Wikipedia article and is not mentioned further in this article, I don't think he should be listed here as an influential associate of Castelli's.

• 1a: "The 1782 Rebellion of Túpac Amaru II was still remember as well." First, there's a grammar error. But second, what does it mean that it was remembered? Did it influence his thinking? I think a reword would help.
  • Excellent rewording. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: "The prominent local merchant Cornelio Saavedra was influential in Avilés' ruling." I don't understand what this means. Did he urge Aviles to confirm Castelli? A reword would help.

• 6b: The Manuel Belgrano caption needs a reword. It should say who his cousin is. Also, "shared the work in journalism and the consulate" is awkwardly phrased.

• 1a: "Following Santiago de Liniers' reconquest of Buenos Aires..." Does "Following" mean "After" here? Or that he escaped to follow Liniers?

• 6b: The Carlota image says she "sought to rule the Río de la Plata as regent". That's true, but the text says she rejected support for her being a constitutional monarch. So I think it would be better to relpace "regent" with "absolute monarch" in this caption. Would this be accurate?
  • Well, after reading your comments below, I understand that the current wording is accurate.

• 1a: This part is confusing: "Consequently, she denounced the letter, and through his agent, Julián de Miguel, she jailed Diego Paroissien, who had several letters to the criollos, and charged him with high treason." The sentence is choppy, with too many commas. Also, who is "his"? Castelli's, perhaps? How did she jail Paroissien through Miguel? I think it should be rewritten.

• 1a: You quote Castelli as saying "it's not enough the mere will of the people of Spain to bring the obedience of the Indies". I assume this is your own translation from the Spanish? If so, it should be translated in a clearer way. Does it mean "The will of the people of Spain is not enough to bring the Indies to obedience"?

• 1a: In English, "the American people" almost always means the people of the U.S.A., which I don't think is what you mean. Would it be accurate to say "the people of the Americas"?

• 1a: "The apparent contradiction is explained in that Álzaga, unlike the criollos, sought to depose the viceroy, who opposed his interests, while maintaining the social dominance of the peninsulares over the criollos." Why is there an apparent contradiction? I think this should be reworded, but I'm not sure how. Would it be accurate to replace that sentence with the following? "(Though Castelli had also sought to remove Liniers, Álzaga was hoping to maintaining the social dominance of the peninsulares over the criollos once the viceroy was deposed.)"

  I read your reply below, and I still think a reword could improve the grammar and make it more clear. I changed the text to say:

  Castelli supported Liniers, accusing Álzaga of independentism. (Though Castelli was himself an independentist, and had also sought to remove Liniers, he opposed Álzaga for other reasons: Álzaga was hoping to maintaining the social dominance of the peninsulares over the criollos once the viceroy, who opposed his interests, was deposed.) Álzaga was defeated...

  Does this wording work for you? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: "Belgrano insisted on the Carlotist plan..." I'm not sure what this means, given that Charlotte of Spain had rejected their support. Was he insisting that Charlotte be made constitutional monarch? Or that she be made absolute monarch, as she insisted?

• • Done But a pair of clarifications. On the regency thing, there is no contradiction. A regent is a type of individual authority in a monarchy, like a king, a queen or a prince consort (to name others) are other types of monarchic authorities. On the other hand, the constitutional/absolutist dichotomy is about the government style of the monarchy itself. So: Castelli wanted Charlotte to be a regent in a constitutional monarchy, ad she wanted to be regent in an absolutist monarchy. As for the "apparent contradiction", the detail that would seem contradictory if it was not explained was why would Castelli accuse Álzaga of independentism, being an independentist himself. If I don't explain the difference between Álzaga and Castelli, it would not be clear why Castelli was not on Álzaga's side in his mutiny. Cambalachero (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry that it's taking longer that I'd thought to review this article. I've been unavailable that past few days. Thanks for your patience and your improvements. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: There are a few problems with this sentence: "The memoirs of witnesses and participants mention him at many venues, participating in many activities: negotiating with the Cabildo's men; at the home of the Rodriguez Peña; participating in planning the steps to follow for the criollos, barracks sandblasting militias, back and forth to the Fort of Buenos Aires to pressure Cisneros." If it can be shortened or split up, that would be good. Does "participating in planning the steps to follow for the criollos" mean planning with the criollos, or planning with others what to do about the criollos? And what does "barracks sandblasting militias" mean? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: The quote by Julio César Chávez has some problems with wording, and I'm not sure how to fix it. It doesn't seem to be a sentence, and often words seem to be next to each other without a clear way they relate. I don't understand "loyal to the slaughter with a friend" or "to the enemy a final decision", etc. How can this be fixed so that the English is grammatical and clear, while still being true to the original Spanish? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. I removed the ( ) from the explanation of the difference between Castelli and Álzaga, as it is a long sentence, and does not disrupt the other ones. As for the quote, I changed my mind: it's better to describe what Chávez says about Moreno and Castelli, rather than cite the whole quote verbatim. After all, it's not a quote significant in itself, but a random paragraph I once thought that said things well enough, nowadays I concur with the MOS that quotes should be kept to a minium and not be used as shortcuts to avoid writing ourselves the summaries of information. Cambalachero (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Great choices. This article is tightening up wonderfully! There are just a few more points that could use clarifying. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: In the "Campaign in the upper Peru" section, sometimes you capitalize "Upper" and sometimes you don't. Should it be capitalized? Also, sometimes you call it "Upper Peru", while other times you call it "the Upper Peru". Should the "the" be there or not? It ought to be consistent. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done "Upper" is not a geographic explanation but part of the name (as in Northern Ireland), so it should stay capitalized. Uses of "the" had been removed. Cambalachero (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: "advancing over Jujuy" is an odd phrasing. Does this mean "marching over Jujuy", or "overtaking Jujuy"? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: "Castelli was received in Potosí, where he required an oath of allegiance to the Junta..." Does this mean he required that someone else give an oath, or does it mean he was required to give an oath? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: What does "canceling the tutelage" mean? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: "In November 1810 he sent a plan to the Junta". Does this mean he sent them a proposed plan for himself? Or a plan that they should do it without him? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: When you say "fifty-three peninsulars were banished to Salta", do you mean peninsular batallions, or Spanish soldiers, or just people from Spain, or what? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: When you say "When he knew about the fate of Moreno", do you mean his removal from the Junta? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: I'm confused about "Goyeneche". He is first mentioned in the "Execution of Liniers" section, where it is implied that Castelli shot him. At that point, the article doesn't say who he was or why he was important. The "Campaign in the upper Peru" section says he led a royalist army, and that he was safe in royalist land with Ortega. I guess he hadn't been shot after all. Then the end of that section casually says "After the defeat of Goyeneche...", but the article hadn't yet said he had been attacked or defeated. At the top of the "The battle of Huaqui" section, it says that Goyeneche broke a truce with Castelli, and Castelli declared war... but the article never mentions Goyeneche again (though the image caption says he won the battle). I think the article should briefly explain who he was and why he was important, and explain enough of what happens to him along the way that the reader can make sense of it. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• 3a: Many articles like this end in a "Legacy" section, if applicable. Do the sources mention anything about a legacy? Statues in his honor, or streets named after him? How is he viewed today by Argentinians, or Spaniards, or Peruvians? If the sources don't say, that's fine... but if the information is there, it would be a nice ending. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• •  Done I have added some introductory info about Goyeneche. As for the legacy, the sad thing is that Castelli has little legacy beyond what's to be expected from any historical man "of the lot" (a street, a statue at a remote plaza, and little more), but I combined some sources from here and there and explained the lack of such legacy. Cambalachero (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

    There are still two unstruck issues, above: the "fifty-three peninsulars" issue and the "advancing over Jujuy" issue. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    •  Done the Jujuy one. I did not use "march" at first because I associate it with marching as in a parade rather than "army goes from point A to point B", but I guess it works for that as well. As for the peninsulars, no, the book is not specific about the whole group, and they may be from different jobs. However, those mentioned were men of business, so I clarified "associated" to "business association" to make it clear Cambalachero (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. It's been good working with you. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)