# Talk:Fortress of Humaitá

Humaita and the quadrilatero are two diferent things. The article confunds them both. Eleutheure (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

True, it didn't clearly distinguish the Fortress of Humaitá proper and its landward defences the Cuadrilátero.  I have now sought to improve this.

I have proposed that the pages Siege of Humaitá and Passage of Humaitá be merged into this page.  For discussion, see the talk page of Siege of Humaitá.  In essence: it doesn't make too much sense to have three independent Articles about aspects of the same thing, especially since separating the topics makes it much harder to appreciate the difficulties faced by the attackers and defenders, respectively. Ttocserp 13:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose I think it would make this article much too large and unwieldy if two separate military actions were included in this page. Maybe those two articles could be merged into one as they took place consecutively in the same war however this article should remain separate. Articles over 150k are usually broken up into smaller articles. Llammakey (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, Llamakey, if you are really opposed to it I won't insist.  But I see you have expertise on this.  I wonder whether you think the description of the two military endeavours re Humaitá (forcing the passage, and the siege) could be improved in the context of knowing what an amazing fortress this was (by the standards of the time and place, of course).  Would you like to cooperate? Ttocserp 21:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Not my area of expertise. I can copyedit as I did this article and make suggestions, but adding info and the sourcing is outside my ability. The only reason I suggested what I did was because I didn't want to see you waste your time merging the articles. So far you've done a wonderful job on this article and I was afraid if you added the two military endeavours, the article would become oversized and then would get cut up. That's why I suggested merging the two battle articles in one. You can give an overview of this article in that one to demonstrate the issues the attackers faced, but at the same time you have to give weight to what the attackers were bringing. If you did that in the Fortress article, undue weight would be placed on the Fortress. Llammakey (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Llamakey, you've persuaded me.  I think the two battle articles should be merged. Ttocserp 08:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Forcing the passage is a different event that happened in the timeline of the siege, and had effects on it. I think it's ok to leave them as separate articles as long as each one does not unnecessarily duplicate information. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fortress of Humaitá/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 21:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I will take this review. I am sorry for how long you've had to wait. I've reviewed 60+ other articles, including some long and complex ones, and will review this article against the 6 good article criteria. I'll read over this article and have a think, then start the review in 2-3 days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to review this, Tom.  In case you'll have comments I am away in France on a flying course at the moment so I don't have access to my books, but I'll be back home at the weekend. Ttocserp 09:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


### Assessment
### Summary
A fascinating article, you've clearly put a lot of work into this article and the layout and content reflects your enthusiasm for the topic. I will go through this article again briefly. There are a few areas that lack citations, impacting on verifiability, that will need citations. Other than that I see no other barriers to good article nomination. I am yet to: check for plagiarism, check some sources, and check images.  --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

 Doing... no copyright problems, no image problems. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Needing citations: --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"and he understandably feared the machinations of his powerful neighbours."
"Although Carlos López was astute enough to know when to back down, he resolved to make Paraguay immune to foreign attack in future."
"chains twisted together, passed diagonally through a kind of brick tunnel. It was made fast to a windlass supported by a house about 100 yards from the bank. Nearer the battery stood a still larger capstan."
"Lopez explained his seizure of the Brazilian ship by saying "with more candor than discretion" that only by a war could the attention and respect of the world be secured to Paraguay; that although Paraguay was a small power in comparison with Brazil, she had "advantages of position" that gave her an equality of strength; and that the Paraguayan troops would be already "fortified and intrenched" before the Brazilians could arrive in any considerable numbers."
Thank you indeed Tom.  I really appreciate it that you have taken all this trouble to check this.
I have references for each of the four points you mention.  (In fact two of them are covered by existing references, which goes to show I didn't put the footnotes in the right places.)   I'll try to do these tonight. Ttocserp
Hi Tom, I've finished these now.  If you have any other points or queries, I'd be glad to address them,  Thank you for the trouble you have taken already. Ttocserp 18:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your edits and responsiveness. This is a great article to read and I am passing it as a GA. I would guess this is probably the most thorough resource on this topic around, you should be proud of your work and I hope it is also a delight to read for interested readers. Well done, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Addit: I've added this to Wikipedia:Good_articles/History#South_American_history, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Tom, I'm delighted.
Any chance the coveted green cross symbol can appear at the top of the Arti le page?  Ttocserp 16:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Most definitely. From what I understand a bot will do it shortly.So maybe give it another 24 hours, and if not I'll add the coveted trophy myself.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Stil no coveted trophy!   :=(  Ttocserp 13:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Done :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted a lot of superfluous categories. They were grandfather categories. Wiki policy says not to have every grandfather category. Wiki policy says to diffuse to the lowest branch of the tree. That is now the position of the categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep it off my talk page please. Regarding Category:International relations theory - can you find one article that has a war in it, a battle or a passage? No? That's because it's about the subject in general. To have it otherwise would clutter it with a lot of material that is tangential to the subject. Only material that is directly germane to the topic ought to be in the top level. Everything ought to find it's own place in the tree structure (i.e. the bottom-most logical leaf). And so for all the other categories that I deleted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)