Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Gonzales/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:23, 9 September 2010 [1].

Battle of Gonzales

Featured article candidates/Battle of Gonzales/archive1

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "battle" was fought over a cannon "good for little more than starting horse races". One side took time out from firing their weapons to eat watermelon. The other side were under orders not to fight and went home. That didn't stop the watermelon eaters from declaring victory. 175 years later, we're still arguing about what happened to the cannon. Because the battle was so tiny, it's discussed mainly in relation to the Texas Revolution as a whole, so the article relies heavily on broader scholarly works. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no dab links, no dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sounds like my kind of battle. I can't see much wrong with this. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looking good. Ucucha 18:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all four of you for taking a look at the article - and so quickly! Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comment nice article, one quibble is that in references TX should be spelt out as Texas, per MoS Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an MOS rule I didn't know. I'll take care of that. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in going back to look at the article I realized that this is a pretty common citation style (the APA endorses state abbreviations, and I think that is also the case for the MLA). Can you point me to the appropriate MOS page so I can check it out? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Concise, well-written article. ceranthor 19:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good read. Interesting and well-written.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But please note my comment on your talk page about the Battle of Lipantitlán. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, I had missed that one. I'll see what I can do about the map next week. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good work. Is there a reason why this sentence - "By the end of the year, the Texians had driven all Mexican troops from Texas." - isn't cited? Tom (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of those obvious facts that I didn't see the need to cite. It can be found in any of the books. User:Karanacs 01:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nicely done, though perhaps include the flag used at the battle and the mexican flag in the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I chose not to include the flags because the Come and Take It flag was used by this group of Texans as a taunt at the end of the events, it did not necessarily represent all of Texas. At the time, Texas was still part of Mexico and there was no consensus within the region (or even among those involved in this dispute) as to whether Texas should secede. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — In relation to 1c/2c: No journal articles have been published in the last 20 years of note according to Scholar, the material is secondary and appears to reflect the depth of Scholarship available. In relation to 2c: fn2, 20, 30, 33, 34 lack terminal full-stops in the citations (required to match other footnote citations in style). This appears to be due to a mixture of manual short citations, and automatic long citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article is internally consistent - short citations with only author name, date, and page number end with a full-stop. Full citations of websites and full citations of books do not end with a full stop. Thanks for looking over the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Interesting article. However, in the lead, for the sentence "Although the soldiers neared Gonzales on September 29, colonists used a variety of excuses to keep them from the town, while secretly sending messengers to request assistance from nearby communities." The word "Although" doesn't seem quite right. "Although" means "in spite of" and the people of Gonzales weren't mounting a resistance "in spite of" the soldiers arrival, but "because of it". Again, unusual and interesting article. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the intended contradiction is that the soldiers came close to Gonzales, but did not reach the town (because of the "variety of excuses"). Ucucha 17:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is perhaps very slightly jarring though, and it's easily changed anyway, as I've done. Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I never tire of reading these famous skirmishes. Being an adopted son of Texas I do seem to recall the history books stating that the Mexican troops were driven out, but I do agree that this needs a cite to stay in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still disagree with the need for the cite, but I've bowed to the Toms and added one. Thanks for looking at the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs asked me to pop in, and to my eyes the images are all well-documented, with source, author, and date info and demonstrably public domain/free use. Passes crit. 3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I appreciate your taking a look! Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.