Talk:Ojo de Agua Raid

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ojo de Agua Raid article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ojo de Agua Raid has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 16, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 18, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that on October 21, 1915, a band of Mexicans invaded the United States and conducted a raid on Ojo de Agua in Texas as part of the Plan de San Diego?

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Orphaned reference

Hi. Good work on this article. I have one observation: Note # 5, "US Army Armor School, p. 239" does not appear to be identified fully in the References section. Would it be possible to add these details, please? Also, I've made a few changes, mainly just copy editing/fixing typos etc. Please review and tweak as you feel necessary. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the ref to the ref section, i had a feeling i forgot something when i fifrst posted the article now i know what it was lol. The changes you made all are excellent.XavierGreen (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, keep up the good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Raid on Ojo de Agua/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Add place of publication to refs.
Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
1 missing cite.
Added.XavierGreen (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I think i've fixed the issues above, thanks for your review!XavierGreen (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]