Talk:Gregorio Cortez/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 11:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add notes as I go through the article; it might take me a couple of days to finish. Note that the tag at the top indicating that the article is being expanded will have to be gone before I can pass the article.

~~The Jastrzembski references is listed as 1999 in the citations, but 2000 in the sources list -- which is correct?~~
In the "See also" section, you can cut anything that's already linked from the body of the article. You don't currently link the Texas Rangers, but it would be good to do so and then cut that from "See also". I'd also cut Mexican-American.
a cycle of revenge involving Bandit Gang, Texas Rangers and innocent Mexican-Americans collaterals victims: why is "Bandit Gang" capitalized? Is it a reference to something in one of the sources cited? Given that "bandit gangs" are something of a cliche in Texas/Mexican history, do we need to clarify whether this was a perception or a reality or somewhere in between?
historian Robert M. Utley exposes the complex nature of the relationship: I'd use a more neutral verb than "exposes", which implies Wikipedia agrees with Utley's analysis. Perhaps "argues that the relationship between... was complex", or "discusses the complexities of the relationship"?
~~A misunderstanding of semantics, and the violence which ensues, lies at the core of the true story of Gregorio Cortez and constitutes the principal incident. Why do we need this sentence?~~
There's a citation needed tag on the next sentence which needs to be addressed. And do we even need this sentence? The following sentences give us the names, and explain that it was related to a horse trade, so does this really add anything other than that the source is court records? If that's important it could be mentioned much more concisely.
allegedly an expert on the Mexican language: why not just "could allegedly speak Spanish"? Not necessary for GA, I'm just curious as to why this is phrased this way. Do the sources refer to the language as Spanish or Mexican?
The sheriff was the first to draw a pistol despite the suspicion on his part the both Cortezes were probably unarmed. Two things: "the both" looks like a typo of some kind, and if the sheriff is killed shortly after this, how do we know he suspected the Cortezes were unarmed?
The Sheriff shot Romaldo as he stood there with his head thrown back. The Sheriff shot him in the face, right in the open mouth, and Romaldo fell away from the door, at the Major Sheriff's feet. And then Gregorio Cortez stood at the door, where his brother had stood, with his pistol in his hand. The Major Sheriff fell dead at the feet of Gregorio Cortez, and it was in this way that Gregorio Cortez killed the first sheriff of many that he was to kill. Too dramatic; needs to be toned down. Why is it encyclopedic to say how Romaldo was holding his head? And the language in this paragraph reads more like a fictionalization than a simple narration of events.
Why is the date of the killing given in the next section? Seems like it would make more sense to mention it right at the start of the "Incident" section, where it would help set the scene.
After escaping: we haven't said he escaped yet; did he have to run from Boone Choate, or was Choate not armed?
In the Battle of Belmont section, the paragraph starting "According to the Texas Court..." seems to be recounting the historical version, but then the last paragraph gives a few different details. Wouldn't it make more sense to combine these two paragraphs so the reader reads the account of the battle once? If there are significant differences between Paredes' version and what can be gleaned from court records, then say so, but I don't see any as it stands so it would seem kinder to the reader to combine the two.
~~Also, "fell dead before to run into the brush" makes no sense; an editing error of some kind?~~
The "Flight" section partly precedes the "Battle of Belmont" section which makes it very confusing for the reader. Could we just make this chronological? "Incident" could include the flight to the Robledo ranch, and then "Flight" could continue with events after the Battle of Belmont.
It's also apparent at this point that Romaldo is still alive, but he's referred to above as having been killed. We should include a reference to his death somewhere in the article.
~~he decided to head north instead to confuse his persecutors: "persecutors" is not the right word. They weren't persecuting him; they were searching for him.~~
He traveled 55 miles from Kenedy to Belmont in hopes of hiding at the house of his friend, Martín Robledo. At the Robledo residence, a couple of days past, authorities had found Cortez and thus begun the Battle of Belmont (see above). This doesn't seem to make sense -- he gets there, but the authorities had already found him? And this is uncited too; it needs a citation, whether you keep it here or move it up as suggested above.
the Corpus Christi-to-Laredo railroad made it evident that he was moving toward Laredo: I don't follow this -- how does the railroad make this evident? Do you mean it became apparent that he was following the course of the railroad? If so, say that.
Again it looks as if things might be out of sequence in this paragraph -- the mare drops dead, but then jumps over wire fences. And does he leave the mare because it "could not continue" or because it "dropped dead"?
~~but would be betrayed and captured shortly: why do we need this?~~
This was one of the largest manhunts in history: looking at the source you're using for this, I suspect this needs qualification -- largest in Texas? In the US?
Gregorio becomes a fugitive, faithful to that part of his sung legend which celebrates him as a "good shot and superb rider, a man of nerve, ingenuity, and endurance." We already know he's a fugitive, and the rest of this is out of place here -- it belongs in the section at the end where you discuss his legend.
The "Capture" section seems to cover the Battle of Belmont again, but now it talks about the Thulemeyer ranch. I thought this was the Robledo ranch? And this account doesn't seem to match the one above; Glover dies in both accounts, but now there's a sheriff of Atascosa County as well, who is not mentioned in the earlier account.
Is there no information about his actual capture except the date? Where was he captured, and who by, and how?

-- That's everything up to the Trials section; I'll post comments on the second half of the article probably tonight. Generally the sources look solid and the basic material is here; there's a little reorganization needed, and some clarifications, but this is not far off GA from what I've read so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More, starting with the Trials section:

The article by José Antonio López for the San Antonio Express-News isn't a very good source; he's an author but has no academic credentials. I don't think it's good enough to support the claim that many Anglos admired Cortez, and the other use, in the "Flight" section, provides a lot of detail that would be best sourced somewhere else.
~~Do we know how much money was raised by the fund?~~
local "rancheros" (ranchers): is the implication that those who donated were Mexican-American? Or doesn't the source make it clear? Either way I think "rancheros (ranchers)" is unnecessary; either "rancheros" is obvious, in which case it doesn't need glossing, or it's not, in which case we shouldn't use it unless there's a clear reason to.
~~The battle of the courts began on July 24, 1901: again, too dramatic. Just say the court case began on that date.~~
The comment about lawmen waiting for Cortez to be sentenced to death is certainly plausible, but unless Jastrzembski (the source here) has unimpeachable evidence I'd say this needs to be attributed to Jastrzembski inline, to avoid the article appearing to be non-neutral.
Again the sequencing seems a little off. We give the opening date, then describe some of those attending the case, then go back to say what Cortez is being tried for. Wouldn't that more logically be first?
Though they originally claimed the murder to have been done by a Mrs. Robledo during the fight, Robledo was coaxed into testifying that she had seen Cortez shoot and kill both Schnabel and Sheriff of Gonzales County, Robert M. Glover: I don't really follow this. Who is "they"; the prosecution? That would make no sense. And who did the coaxing? The prosecution? And "coax" is not a neutral way to describe this, it implies that she lied. And why would anyone have to coax an accused woman to claim someone else did it? As a side note, we already know who Glover is from the earlier part of the article, so we can make this just "kill both Schnabel and Glover".
~~What story did Sanders tell? That he was pressured to change his vote? That's not clear from the way it's worded now.~~
I'd like to be convinced that this source is reliable for the purposes you're using it for; it seems a bit melodramatic for a law library, and in any case as far as I can see it actually doesn't support some of what you're using it for. For example, it's used to cite The trial swayed all jurors, besides an A.L Sanders who believed Cortez to be innocent. However, as a family member of Sanders's soon developed a serious illness and the juror needed to return home, Sanders succumbed to the jury's pressure, ultimately sentencing Cortez to 50 years in prison for second-degree murder but it doesn't even mention Sanders. It's used to cite Many local officers were enraged about the verdict as they wanted to see Cortez face the death penalty. A few months later, as Cortez was in a Gonzales jail, over 300 men arranged a lynching of the recently sentenced prisoner but the bit about local officers isn't mentioned, and all it says about the lynching is that a mob tried when he was in the Gonzales jail, not what the date was or how many men there were; and it says they failed, which your text doesn't make clear. It doesn't say tensions grew after the reversal in 1902.
There are several more unsourced sentences; at the end of the "Gonzales Trial" section, and at the end of "Further Legal Battles".
A minor style note: you don't need "The" in section titles, generally, and they should be in sentence case, not title case, so "Gonzales trial", not "The Gonzales trial", and "Further legal battles", not "Further Legal Battles".
In the "Further Legal Battles" section, why do we hear about the 1901 Karnes City trial only after talking about 1902 events?
More non-neutral language: "rushed decision"; the "criminalization" of Cortez; "understood he acted in self-defense".
I'm surprised by so many trials -- what was the legal basis for trying him so many times? I assume it's because until Corpus Christi he was never found innocent; it was just hung juries and reversed decisions? It would help to make that clear.
~~as the Columbus trial sentenced Cortez for Glover's murder assuming he had already killed Morris: I'm not sure what this means.~~
his alleged murder of Sheriff Robert M. Glover, who was killed during the pursuit: I thought he was killed during the initial confrontation?
~~The last two sentences of the "Prison and pardon" section say the same thing; I'd combine them.~~ What were the conditions on the pardon?
There are a couple more unsourced sentences in the "In popular culture" section, at the end of some paragraphs.
~~The particularity of the work is that it constitutes a hybrid of genres: I'm not sure what is meant here, but I think it could just be dropped, or at least cut to "The book is a hybrid of genres".~~
Are there more details from Paredes that could be used to expand the earlier part of the article about Cortez's life? At the moment we just have a handful of details.

-- That's it for a first pass. I've placed the nomination on hold to give you time to make the fixes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I see y'all are working on the article; let me know when you want me to take another look. If you want, you can post a note under each point above when you think it's dealt with, so I can follow along and strike out the issues as you go; or you can wait till you think everything is done and let me know then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Hi Mike Christie. We believe we have made all the necessary edits for the GA nomination. Thank you for all your hard work and helping us understand how to improve this article. We appreciate it. Take care. Chr66 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass

I've struck out everything above that was obviously fixed, but since it's changed so much, rather than go through the above points line-by-line I'm just going to read it again and make notes below, so you can ignore the unstruck points above. It's definitely much improved. Incidentally, if I ask a question like "What does Bandit Gang" refer to?", you don't have to just edit the article to fix what you feel the problem is, you can also reply here to explain what the intention was. If you're in any doubt about what I'm driving at that might be the most productive thing to do. Usually I'll reply within 24 hours.

What does "Bandit Gang" refer to?
To move beyond this dichotomy, historian Robert M. Utley exposes the complex nature of the relationship between the Mexican Americans and the Texas Rangers. The problem with this phrasing is it makes it sounds like we (that is, Wikipedia editors) agree with Utley. We can't do that because this is Utley's opinion -- it's not a clear statement of fact. How about: "Historian Robert Utley considers the relationship between Mexican Americans and the Texas Rangers to be more complex than this dichotomy suggests; while some rangers may have been..."
Put the events of "Early life" in chronological order -- I can't tell if Leonor Diaz is his third wife, or his first, since that paragraph jumps back to 1887.
Explain who Villareal is when he is first mentioned.
In the "Incident" section, put things in chronological order -- the order is confusing right now. The sequence, if I have it correctly is: Villareal is accused of horse theft and reveals that he had traded a horse to Cortez; Morris and Choate visit Cortez on June 14, 1901, Cortez says no because of the language issue, Morris decides to arrest him, gun battle follows, Morris shoots Romaldo, Cortez shoots Morris. The current sequence is hard to understand.
There is an uncited sentence at the end of the "Escape to the Robledo ranch" section
You have both "Roblero" and "Robledo"; which is correct?
The actual story, according to the scholar Américo Paredes, was less heroic. We can't imply that Paredes is right and the others are wrong. I suggest "According to Paredes, the story was less heroic." We don't need to introduce Paredes again -- we mentioned him in the background section.
The first sentence of "Capture" repeats some of the information in the last sentence of "Flight".
Why does the "Capture" section repeat the Robledo ranch story?
Though the defense was optimistic about their appeal being upheld, Cortez's lawyers had built a case saying that Cortez had not fired shots anywhere near Glover in the Battle of Belmont which many witnesses denied. I don't understand this sentence -- why do you say the lawyers built a case, though they were optimistic? And what was it that the witnesses denied -- that he had fired shots, or that he had not fired shots?
There is an uncited sentence at the end of the section "El Corrido de Gregorio Cortez", and another at the end of the first paragraph of the section "With His Pistol in His Hand".
the film's authenticity is a profound departure from this genre: this is opinion, so either cut "profound", or attribute this inline to the source. Since the next two sentences make the same point with attributed opinions, I would just cut "profound".
the movie has been considered the most authentic Westerns in the history of American cinema: presumably should be "one of the most authentic Westerns", since it's ungrammatical as it stands. Or does the source support "the most authentic Western"?
the choice made by Villasenor: who is Villasenor? Sounds like he was the scriptwriter, or one of them, but if so, say so.
I don't think the article by Lopez in the San Antonio Express-News is a reliable source for what you're using it for; I think you need to replace it with something more reliable, or cut that material.

That's everything -- the article is much improved and is now pretty close to GA status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, do you know if your students plan to make another pass at this? Or is the semester over? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the semester will be over now, so I'm going to fail this; I'll start another review if any of the students want to continue working on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]