Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Goliad

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:34, 19 September 2008 [1].

Battle of Goliad[edit]

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk)


This is another short article on a battle in the Texas Revolution. It was a small battle, and as such not a lot has been written about it, but I think this article is as comprehensive as it could possibly be. Karanacs (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs): Excellent article, just a few things:

  • I found two instances of the word "approximately" in the article. Personally, I like "about" better, it's shorter and simpler.
  • "...where the newly-formed Texian Army was located." Per WP:HYPHEN, hyphens are not used after -ly adverbs.
  • I assume that John J. Linn and John Linn are the same; wikilink the first instance of the person (3rd para of "Background") instead of the "Aftermath" section.
  • "The Texians also gained control of several cannon." Cannons.
  • "early-morning"—Whoops, here's another hyphenated -ly, at least I think so. I've never seen early morning hyphenated before. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and the compliment. I have fixed the last three issues. I like "approximately" better than about, though, so I'll keep that version. Karanacs (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem with that. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just removed the Further reading section; that book is more of an overview of the revolution than one about the battle. Karanacs (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've only had time to read the lead, which I found a mite confusing:-

  • "several men": Surely there must be a more precise way of defining these conspirators?
  • The connector "however", in the middle of the second paragraph, looks out of place; it's not obvious how what follows it is connected to that which precedes it.
  • There are also a couple of minor things: "outside of Goliad" - is the "of" necessary? And, in the final sentence of the first paragraph a comma is necessary after "Mexican Army".

It might be worth doing a general wash-and-brush-up on the lead, to improve its clarity. I will try to get back and look at the rest of the article, when I have done some overdue chores. Brianboulton (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've revamped the lead completely. It makes more sense to me now - I hope it does the same for you! Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  1. With the lead (first 3 paragraphs) lacking any inline citations, I felt uncomfortable continuing through the article, though I saw plenty of inline citations thereafter.
    Comment Actually, per WP:LEDE#Citations, the lead doesn't need to be cited as long as the information which is summarized in the lead is cited below and the lead doesn't contain any contentious information, i.e. about living person, etc. In my opinion, the article and the lead aren't contentious enough to warrant citing in the lead. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The David entry in the Further reading section still needs formating assistance such as mentioned above, and you'll want to include the publisher's location.
  3. The Huson entry in the References section has an OCLC that could be added if you format with {{citation}} or {{cite book}}. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Geographical coordinates of the battleground site, and maybe a location map, would be nice. —Angr 19:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a map of where Goliad is located. Karanacs (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like the article to have a battle map. And this is what I want in general from war- or battle-related article.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What also seems a bit odd to me is that the main "battle" section is the shortest one in the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded below with information on why I can't expand the battle section (no info). I also have not seen anywhere a map of the actual battle. It took place in the presidio just outside Goliad, and I haven't found a floor plan of that (nor details on where the fighting actually was within the presidio). Karanacs (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fair enough! Anyway, the article is already nice, so you have my spport.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • The Prelude section uses the word "group" far too much. I would replace some of the instances, but the only word I can think of is "mob" and I'm not sure if that's a good term or not.
    • Yes, the battle section is a bit too small. Maybe put in a statement or two about how long it lasted, etc. if you can find some. I think the important part of the battle is the result (they cut of the Mexican supply chain), but the battle should be longer. Good job with the article, tho. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost no information available on the battle itself. It was really short, and was basically a group of soldiers standing on the second floor shooting down at a group of insurgents who shot back at them. None of the books I've consulted provide any additional detail that I could use to expand the section. The sources concentrate on the events leading up to the battle and the aftermath. Karanacs (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also done a ce of the article (especially of the lead). This should hopefully alleviate your worries about the overuse of the word "group". Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great ce. Glad you're okay. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - short, but I'm not one to complain about "small" topics! JonCatalán(Talk) 03:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Goliad&oldid=1078786365"