# Talk:Revolt of the Lash

primary source
"The Naval Situation: Foreign Powers," Times (London), 4 March 1911. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Revolt of the Lash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 01:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


### Comments
I'll post a review of this interesting-looking article over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is in excellent shape. I have the following comments:

Is note 'B' necessary?
I think it is; there were a few details that I left out, as that level of nuance didn't seem appropriate for the lead. Am happy to reconsider if you think it's a bad idea.
As the text links to the article and it's fairly clear that it's a simplified version, I think that it should be omitted: it looks a bit like a comment, and detracts from the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Good argument—I've removed the note! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
"These officers were fond of inflicting corporal punishment" - is "fond" the right word here? It makes it sound like the officers enjoyed this. "Frequently inflicted" perhaps?
Fixed.
"forty-five percent of its authorized personnel (in 1896) " - this is then repeated in the same para
Fixed.
Can more be said about what the planning ahead of the mutiny involved? - it's stated that the mutiny was planned well in advance, but not much further detail is currently provided
Added, although the diff is hard to read.
Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Do any of the sources discuss how the skills of the crews of the ships improved, and what this meant for the individuals' self-respect and attitudes? There seems to be a story here about the modernisation of the navy leading to the transformation of the crew from a lowly-skilled labouring underclass into what were essentially skilled workers which could be more fully fleshed out.
I strongly suspect that info is in A marinha brasileira na era dos encouraçados, 1895–1910, as 'technological advances without accompanying social change' is basically Martins' thesis in six words. However, I don't speak Portuguese (the info in this article was related by a Brazilian editor), so for now, I won't be able to act on this.
OK Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
On that topic, as a suggestion for the further development of the article, it might be worth looking through the literature on labour relations for material on this topic.
Thanks for the idea! The revolt is surprisingly not well covered in non-naval contexts, but I'm wondering if I'm just not Googling correctly. Have any ideas?
Not beyond trawling JSTOR and similar academic databases. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, there's sadly much not there on this directly. Would love to make comparisons, but that'd have to be off-wiki. :-) `Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
"A significant percentage" - could you say "around half" given the numbers discussed in note G? I'd also suggest bringing the content of this note into the body of the article given its importance.
Added the 1,500–2,000 out of 4,000 figure.
"Unfortunately" - seems like editorialising, and isn't necessary
Good call, I meant to say "unfortunately for the government" or something similar, but I've just removed it.
File:Rui barbosa.jpg probably needs to be tagged with {{FoP-Nederland}} or similar
Done!
File:JCandido.JPG needs to be tagged with {{FoP-Brazil}}
Done as well.
Could the process by which the Navy was re-manned be discussed? Did the new sailors enjoy the improved conditions the mutineers had won, or were these pulled back? Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there anything which can be added on this suggestion? Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
{[ping|Nick-D}} My apologies for missing this. Neither Love nor Morgan, the two major sources here, directly address that (which for Morgan actually surprises me, given his thesis). I've added what I can. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Nick-D: ... I screwed up the ping above. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@The ed17: Sorry I missed this: I'm very pleased to pass this review. And Merry Christmas! Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Nick-D. I've left replies interspersed above and will get to the rest shortly. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Nick-D, I've finished responding to your points. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


### Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

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

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

In the Mutiny section (near the Minas Geraes picture), the blockquote includes the phrase, use and abuse of corporeal punishment continues. I do not have access to the translation used. Can someone check if the source uses 'corporeal', which is incorrect, or uses 'corporal' in which case this is just a typo? If a direct quote from Morgan's book, it should be called out with [sic]; otherwise, it should be corrected to corporal. Please and Thank You, Bitten Peach (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)