Talk:Battle of El Mazucu

Battle of El Mazucu was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 6, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Spain Mid‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / Spanish C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Spanish military history task force

Curly braces?[edit]

'Hello'? What's the point of adding empty lists with no information ... or any hint of what they are intended for? (And why all the curly braces?) mfc

Class[edit]

This one doesn't seem to have any gaps and the reference is the only one to be found, so class B seems harsh quota 12:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of place names[edit]

81.9.240.159 wrote:

Real name of the place is "El Mazucu". the same for "El Biforcu" and specially "Peña Blanca".

People who live in the village call it El Mazuco, and the sign outside the village spells it that way, too. And the primary reference (see references section) spells it that way too. He also uses 'la altura del Biforco' (and current maps also spell it that way). He uses both Peña Blanca (to refer to the whole hill) and Peñas Blancas (to refer to the three summits of the hill), so it would seem both are correct. mfc 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording to clarify when the three summits or whole mountain is referred to. quota 11:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class/general discussion[edit]

This isn't my area of expertise but from all I can find on the web (English and Spanish) and in my University library, this article is 'spot-on' .. it captures exactly the essence of the cited references, and what actually happened. Why would anyone grade it as 'B-class' without good reason? Have set the class to '?' for now, surely there must be some process for any grade, not just someone who wanders by ... quota

Reverted to B-class. It may, in fact be A-class (or even FA), but to get such a rating, it needs to go through the formal review process for those classifications. Feel free to nominate it for a better classification at the relevant locations. In the meantime, it should stay at B-class. Carom 20:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I had evaluated this article, I definitely would have given it a B-rating. The commanders are given by only one name (presumably their family name) and not their full givenname-surname. The account of the battle reads like a list of bullet-points, not a proper prose paragraph form. And there are so few links - why do the commanders' names not appear in the text? Every section is rather short - the introduction, the prelude, the combatants in particular. See Battle of Greece or Battle of Crete for what a better-than-B-class article is supposed to look like. LordAmeth 13:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll admit I know nothing about the battle or the region, but my general knowledge of the Spanish language tells me it's much more likely that Mazuco and Biforco are the proper place names. Maybe I'm wrong; I don't know. LordAmeth 13:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about General José Solchaga Zala[edit]

It's not absolutely clear from the various references and biographies around whether José Solchaga Zala was promoted to general before or after this battle. Does anyone have a definitive date? quota 11:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

Upon its review on September 6, 2007, this good article candidate was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

has a complete lack of reliable sources, see WP:Verifiability

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. {{{comments}}} I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. Cheers, CP 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea who nominated it ... but I don't understand the "has a complete lack of reliable sources" comment; La Guerra Civil en Asturias is the definitive source for this battle. mfc 11:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITE. For an article to be considered a "Good Article," all of the facts and information must have inline citations, so that a reader can be directed to exactly the source where the information is printed. Cheers, CP 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. The source was in the References, but have added a CITE. Would be nice if the editing help mentioned that markup. mfc 09:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation section is still not up to GA standards. You have to have an in-line citation for every statement (or at least every paragraph) not just for the article as a whole.

Well, just read the original source ... (or the translation). Are you saying one has to put citation in for each paragraph to map to the source(happy to do that, but it is rather obvious, given each paragraph is dated)?

Yes, indeed. It does seem a bit silly in certain instances (for example, on List of living supercentenarians, even though 90% of them are from the same source, each one has to be cited as coming from that source) but that's the biggest problem with the article at the moment. Technically, it should be for each statement, but if a whole paragraph is coming from the same source, then it is redundant and pointless to cite each statement. So citing each paragraph directly (even if obvious) would be the best step and would allow me to focus on other GA issues with the article. Cheers, CP 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if there's only one source for the entire Battle, the battle probably isn't notable, as WP:NOTABLE generally requires multiple, non-trivial sources for notability. I don't mean to sound rude, I'm just trying to help. Cheers, CP 16:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not taken as rude at all .. and definitely taken as constructive. This was a (perhaps The) critical battle of Spanish Civiil War in 1937, because, when lost, the fall of Asturias (and of Gijon -- the Republican symobolic 'flagship town') was inevitable. The whole war was over once Asturias (the spark for the Republican movement because of the coal mines there) was taken by the Nationalists, because that was where the political movement started.

The lack of sources is indeed a problem (any comtemporary reports were simply impossible in the Franco era after that war). But if you talk to the locals, the de Blas source (and he is certain non-trivial, as is that entire book) is remarkably to the point, and it seems quite restrained compared to what they say happened -- carts of bodies being brought down every day during the evening truce, etc. mfc 20:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions on what to do about that? There's always a problem when an historic resistance has been supressed by the victors; that does not make an event less nortable. mfc 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you haven't taken offense. The last person with a Wikipedia article who I tried to work with on Wikipedia policy created less than amiable circumstances. Anyhow, to business. My suggestion for now would be to do the in-line citations. My method of thinking tends to lean towards focusing on one problem at a time, so perhaps if I could see what was cited, I could focus on what to do about the small number of sources. For example, with the GA article that I've been working on, Major League Baseball (video game), I was able to use some more trivial sources as supplement to a small number of really good ones - and this is certainly more notable than that video game, so I think it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Once the in-line citations are complete, I can get a better picture of the article as a whole. When I see things that are missing or could be added, one of us may be able to think of different sources that could fill in the gap. For example, with MLB, I added in a section on the development of the video game and put my game in context by using other sources to discuss previous attempts at a fully licensed MLB game. Anyhow, let me know when the in-line citations are done and we can work from there. Cheers, CP 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carpet Bombing[edit]

The first use of carpet bombing against a military target was by the Regia Aeronautica against Abyssinian troops during the Second Italo–Abyssinian War. Also Guernica could be classed as at least in part a military target as it contained two Basque battalions when bombed.

rsloch (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2008 (BST)