Talk:Antonio Ricaurte

Antonio Ricaurte was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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
July 11, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
August 21, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 9, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Antonio Ricaurte immolated himself in 1814 to prevent the Spanish Crown from taking over the San Mateo estate in Venezuela?

Current status: Delisted good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antonio Ricaurte 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

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

South America: Colombia / Venezuela High‑importance

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America 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.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Colombia (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Venezuela (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / South America / Early Modern / Napoleonic era 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:
/
	Military biography task force
	South American military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Nice[edit]

Good job, Rosa.--I am greener than you! ^{(Lima - Charlie - Over)} 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks :)Rosa 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation[edit]

"It was later estimated the patriots lost less than ten times the number of soldiers as did the royalists."

The above means: royalists lost x soldiers, patriots lost <10x, which is absurd and obviously not correct (and would not be worth saying if it was). The reworded text says what was meant: patriots lost x soldiers, royalists lost >10x soldiers. —Cuiviénen 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither absurd nor incorrect, it's just a redaction style. It's exactly the same as saying the following, "royalists lost more than ten times the number of soldiers as did the patriots". I'll let it go, as you seem to be very adamant about this particular subject. It's not "much better English" as you stated in your edit summary however.Rosa 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA[edit]

to become a GA needs to be nominated first WP:GAN--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...silly paperwork... Rosa 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of July 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: It is well written, however, words in another language needs to be italic per MOS.

2. Factually accurate?: Factually acurate

3. Broad in coverage?: Not a lot of words, but it is still informative.

4. Neutral point of view?: No POV sighted

5. Article stability? History check shows no recent edit war.

6. Images?: Images demonstrate the context, and are well captioned.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — -Flubeca^Talk 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm promoting it, even though it was really close to a fail. Needs more information. -Flubeca^Talk 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's a minor character in the war, there's not a lot more about him anywhere. Thanks for reviewing the article. Rosa 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article will now be delisted per poor reference format and prose OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 14:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that, the first reference is giving me a "Forbidden" and 404 error, and the usage of "herioc" in the intro is entirely subjective and non-neutral as it stands. Homestarmy 00:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gave me a 403 error. Reference #3 and 5 are actually the same reference! OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Antonio Ricaurte/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

From Wikipedia's quality scale page... a B rated article "...has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR)...Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with". I'm reverting this article to GA status as it has none of these problems. This article is wikified, has a good treatment of the subject, has no obvious problems, gaps, excessive information etc. In general, it's adequate for most purposes which is what a GA article requires. For the wikiproject biography, I'm leaving the B rating as it's easier for a third party to intervene and give a new rate. Contrarywise, in wikiproject Colombia, there's no clear mechanism through which a third user could be compelled to reasses this rating. There are not many users who are members of that wikiproject anyways so I think rating this article is basically between you and I Fernando. If you think this article has problems which deserve a B rating please point them out here and fix them if you can...or otherwise just let it be. Rosa 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay, so I've just nominated it...let's see for a while what happens. Rosa 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antonio Ricaurte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]