Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of San Pedro

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 01:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of San Pedro

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that mass defection of their Mexican auxiliaries led to the utmost defeat of the French Army at the Battle of San Pedro?

Created by Lajbi (talk). Self nom at 09:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewed: Order of the Falcon (Czechoslovakia)

• The article does not have inline citations (except in the infobox and the last paragraph). While defection is mentioned in the article, the hook fact is not stated there. (Length, creation date and QPQ are OK.) htonl (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes the whole article (except for the data in the infobox) is based on that three page description of that one source as it is the only detailed account of the battle. That book is out of question reliable. Since the armies were equal at the start of the battle, "The numbers then were against the French..." (statement taken from source) after the mass defection refers to that it had significantly led to the defeat. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 19:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:DYKR suggests at least one inline citation per paragraph. If the whole article depends on that ref, perhaps you could place the appropriate ref tag at the end of the other paragraphs just to make it clear? (I don't doubt the reliability.) I see what you mean about "The numbers were agains..." but perhaps you could reword that sentence to make it clear that this was the turning point? - htonl (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Tried to fulfill your request. Please have a look at it. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 22:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. AGF on the non-English sources. - htonl (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)