Talk:Battle of Peralonso

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Passed. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 03:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Peralonso/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll go ahead and review this article. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PizzaKing! I really appreciate the time and effort you put into your comments. I just want to let you know that tomorrow morning I'm going on a trip for a week, and I'll be away from my secondary sources that I used to construct the majority of this article. So, I won't be able to respond to any of the substantive material until I get back. In the next couple of days, if I am able, I will try to address the stylistic fixes that you've suggested. (Also, this article is my first major Wikipedia project, and this is my first submission for GA, so please forgive me if I do something that doesn't follow protocol. I'm trying my best to learn and I want to improve!)
Rafael Uribe Uribe (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I have all the time in the world to spend until late-August. This is my third review so I'm also somewhat new to reviews, and I'm getting ready to nominate my 7th good article myself. And aside from that, it's cool to learn new stuff while doing these reviews.
Just a note about this talk page, make sure you respond with another layer to whatever comments I leave, like if I comment with a *, make sure to comment with a **, and same for this message which is ::, so you'd respond with :::, if you get what I'm saying.
And have a great trip! PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 02:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about how to layer comments on the talk page! I'm working on the edits this evening, so I'll be periodically responding with comments and replies as I update the page. Rafael Uribe Uribe (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • This is a pretty serious problem I have with the article. The references are quite a big mess and aren't well organized. You really should split it between the citations and the works you're referencing (bibliography) like this articles: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 20:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to do this, but it completely messed up the coding for the citations. I added the bibliography beneath the regular citations as requested, and I tried to change reflist to {{Reflist|22em}} (copying the code from the Central America under Mexican rule page that you linked). I'm really, really sorry that I messed it up so badly. I don't understand the coding. But hopefully the bibliography at least looks like what you wanted it to look like.Rafael Uribe Uribe (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem was that you still hate {{cite book}} templates still in the body and you now had more in a bibliography section, so you had 2 targets for the sfn to direct to which caused the error. I fixed this by deleting all the book citations in the body. Also, I see that there are still a lot of references in the lead. If there is a reference in the lead serving as a citation for something already sourced in the body, remove it. So, if the lead says "X thing happened at Y[1]" and the body also says "X thing happened at Y[1]", remove the citation in the lead since its unnecessary.
        • Thanks for explaining that to me. That makes sense now, I'll be sure to check that I only have one book citation code so that there's only 1 target for the citation. I tried to clean up the lead a bit more and removed most of the citations. Is it okay now or do you want me to get rid of some more of them? Rafael Uribe Uribe (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

  • Copyright of the sole image looks correct to me. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 21:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article could benefit if you could find and add a copyright complying image of Uribe since he seems to be one of the battle's most important figures.
    • I added a picture of Uribe in the section that discusses the controversy over the charge across La Laja Bridge. Rafael Uribe Uribe (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copyright looks correct.

MoS, structure, coverage, and grammar[edit]

Overall
  • Maintain date formatting consistent throughout the article. The infobox and part of the lead uses Day-Month-Year, while the body and part of the lead uses Month-Day-Year.
    • Done. I switched it to Day-Month-Year for consistency.
  • After mentioning a person for the first time, every subsequent mention should only be by their surname. Make sure you keep consistent how you refer to them as, such as Rafael Uribe Uribe who I see referred to as both "Uribe" and "Uribe Uribe".
    • I think this is done! Please let me know if I missed any instance of not just using the surname.
  • I went ahead and made lowercase the non-proper nouns within the section headers
    • Thank you, I appreciate that.
  • I see that Santander Campaign is mentioned in the infobox and in the lead but not in the body. You should add some brief information about the campaign in the background section. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 21:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, just added a brief statement that contextualizes the rest of the background section (since everything else that I wrote about was basically the Santander Campaign).Rafael Uribe Uribe (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • Change 15-16 December 1899 to 15–16 December 1899, using an endash.
    • Done.
  • Lowercase "Conservative government" and "Liberal rebels"
    • Done.
  • Change [[File:Military_flag_of_Colombia.svg|20px]] to {{flagicon image|Military_flag_of_Colombia.svg}} in the Belligerents & Commanders and leaders sections.
    • Any reason in particular the page uses the military flag instead of the national flag? PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 22:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I was imitating what the infobox looked like for the main page on the Thousand Days' War. At the time, I think that page used the military flag. However, now that I'm looking at it, that page has been updated! So yes, I'll update to the national flag.
  • It is probably best to move the units section of the infobox to its own body section under "==Order of battle==" and subsections for "==Conservatives==" and "==Liberals==". It would go best before the Battle section.
    • Done.
  • Move {{Campaignbox Thousand Days War}} into the infobox by adding |campaignbox = {{Campaignbox Thousand Days War}} PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 20:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to do this, but I messed it up. For some reason there is text at the top of the article that says |campaignbox= and I don't know how to get rid of it, or how to incorporate the campaign box properly into the infobox. Let me know what I need to fix and I'll get right to it. (Sorry! I'm still learning how to code things properly in Wikipedia!) Rafael Uribe Uribe (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fixed it.
Lead
  • Mention it was fought between the Conservatives and Liberals before mentioning it was a Liberal victory.
    • Done.
  • Try not to have too many references in the lead. If something is already referenced within the body, it usually doesn't need to be referenced in the lead.
  • The lead also feels like its too long for the length article and goes into too much detail. Consider shortening it down.
  • I looked at the article history and see that the lead used to be the entire article until you expanded the page. So yea, shorten the lead (either removing content or moving it to the body) because it is definitely way too long and detailed for the length of the article. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 21:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I shortened the lead, I hope that this is short enough for your liking. Let me know!Rafael Uribe Uribe (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good.
Background
  • Mention the date the Battle of Bucaramanga happened.
    • Done.
  • Link Rafael Uribe Uribe, Benjamín Herrera, Ramón González Valencia, in the first mention
    • Done.
  • "it delayed almost a month" → it was delayed almost a month
    • I changed the sentence to "it waited almost a month"; what I meant by the sentence was not that the Conservative government was delayed by something out of its control, but rather that it did not act when it could have. That was an awkwardly-worded sentence on my part, though, so hopefully this rework gives it more clarity.
  • This sentences is pretty awkward: "The Liberals were forced to withdraw from Cúcuta, however, when the Conservative army, numbering some 8,000 strong, advanced on the city." I read it as "The Liberals withdrew, however, when the Conservatives (numbering this) advanced ..." and it sounds like a fragment. Also, change "8,000 strong" to "8,000 soldiers".
    • Yes, you're right, that is an awkwardly-phrased sentence, too. I rewrote it. "When the Conservative army, numbering 8,000 soldiers, advanced on Cúcuta, it compelled the Liberals to withdraw."
  • Last sentence of the second paragraph needs a citation. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 21:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute over Conservative command
  • Mention Sanclemente's full name and link to his article in his first mention.
    • Done.
  • Remove "(Teatro de Operaciones Nordeste)". Not necessary.
    • Done.
  • Are "Historical Conservative" and "Nationalist Conservatives" political parties? or are "historical" and "nationalist" adjectives, in which case they should be lowercase.
    • During the Thousand Days' War, the Conservative party was split into two rival factions that tried to lead the party. The secondary literature is a little unclear on whether or not they constituted separate parties (i.e., they nominated separate candidates for the presidency, but I believe only the nationalist candidates went up against the Liberal candidates). However, Wikipedia has a page for the Nationalists. The historical Conservatives were simply adherents to the regular Conservative Party. I ended up changing "historical Conservative" to "Conservative" and kept "Nationalist" capitalized with a link to the Nationalist Party.
  • Mention Villamizar by surname only
    • Done.
  • Link Ramón González Valencia at first mention
    • Done.
  • Link Bogotá at first mention PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 21:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Battle
  • Mention that Cerro Tasajero is a mountain/hill, and change "heights" in the next sentence to "mountain" or "hill"
    • Done.
  • "defensible" → "defendable"
    • Done.
  • "The two sides exchanged messages and attempted to initiate negotiations." when did this happen?
    • Jorge Martínez Landínez does not specify when this happened in his book. He writes, "… y cuando el Ejército del gobierno marchó hacia esta plaza [Cúcuta] se replegaron y aprestaron a la defensiva en la posición de Tasajero, donde no fueron atacados; y después de una serie de cambios de notas enviadas con parlamentarios, se tornó en maniobra ofensiva que culminó en la batalla de Peralonso." That's all he says on the matter. That was the statement that corresponded to the citation I left at the end of that sentence. Do you want me to get rid of the sentence?
      • That's fine then, leave the sentence.
  • Link Cúcuta and Zulia River at first mention
    • Done.
  • "rains" → "rain" or "rain water"
    • Done
  • "waters" → "river"
    • Done.
  • How did the Conservatives find out that the Liberals abandoned their camp?
    • I don't know, the sources do not make this clear. René de la Pedraja writes, "Because the pickets facing Cúcuta remained at their posts until nightfall and left behind bonfires burning, the [Conservative] army troops did not realize until the next day that the rebels had decamped under the cover of rainfall." He doesn't elaborate further. However, the Conservatives obviously did find out that the Liberals abandoned their camp because they followed them and the battle happened. Unfortunately I don't have any good details from the secondary literature (that I'm currently aware of).
      • I see. It's important so it's fine how it is then.
  • Same concern with Uribe earlier. Remain consistent between "González Valencia" or "González" or "Valencia"
    • Okay, I'll change it to "González," so I'm following Spanish-language naming conventions and using his paternal last name. I don't know if this matters or not, but in the secondary literature in Spanish, he's usually referred to as "González Valencia" (I don't know why, but perhaps because "González" is a fairly common last name and this makes clear which general the author is talking about?)
  • Remove the comma after "force a crossing south of La Laja Bridge"
    • Done.
  • You should change the time formats since they look kinda awkward, looking like years to me. 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. or "noon" – 4:30 p.m.
    • Okay, makes sense. I was using military time, I wasn't sure if that was what I should use for a military-themed article. But this has been changed.
  • WP:NPOV(?): Change "The battle had been won." to "The battle ended in a Liberal victory." or "The battle ended in a rebel victory." PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 21:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy over Uribe's charge
  • "At least one historian" who?
    • Jorge Martínez Landínez. I cite him at the end of that sentence, so I thought it was clear who I was referring to. I revised the statement so that I name him explicitly.
  • Mention Villamizar by surname only
    • Done.
  • "only because the Minister of War, José Santos, had sent General Villamizar" → "only because Santos had send Villamizar", he has already been mentioned and Villamizar's rank has already been mentioned
    • Done.
  • Who is Martínez? Mention his first name.
    • I mentioned his full name in the first paragraph of this section. Do you want me to add it again, or is just Martínez okay here?
      • I see, just Martínez is fine.
  • De la Pedraja, same as above
    • Done.
  • Pardo, same as above PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 21:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I also linked his Wikipedia page, since he's a former Minister of Labor. Rafael Uribe Uribe (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • Don't refer to Uribe by his full name as explained earlier
    • Done.
  • "Peralonso attained a mythical status in the Liberal imagination." MOS:PUFFERY? If stated by someone, put "mythical status" in quotes and have a citation at the end of the sentence, if not, change the wording or remove the sentence.
    • Hmm, I suppose I see what you're saying here. I don't have a quote from a historian saying that exact statement. However, my intention is not to mythicize Perlaonso or claim that it was a mythical battle. Rather, I'm trying to explain that for Liberals, the battle of Peralonso was a supremely important event and it was one of their most famous victories of the war. Hence, the following statement mentioning the Liberal legend about the lunar eclipse that coincided with the battle, which has made it into the secondary literature. Do you have an idea for how I can re-phrase the statement without seeming like I'm biased in favor of the Liberals?
      • Probably just something like "The victory at Peralonso was one of the most important Liberal victories." as long as there is a source saying it was important/significant to the Liberals.
  • Merge these sentences into one: "Vargas did not pursue the defeated Conservatives,[50] instead, he garrisoned his army in Bucaramanga for three weeks, before moving to Cúcuta.[51]"
    • Done.
  • Link to the Antioquia Department
    • Done.
  • "help a pro-Liberal insurrection in Antioquia that revolted on" → "help a pro-Liberal insurrection in Antioquia which began on"
    • Done.
  • Change "President Sanclemente replaced Villamizar with Manuel Casabianca" to "Sanclemente replaced Villamizar with Casabianca". Sanclemente's title has already been mentioned, and Casabianca's first name has as well
    • Done.
  • Link Chicamocha River
    • Done.
  • Link the battles at Gramalote and Terán if they exist
    • There are no Wikipedia pages for these battles, in English or in Spanish. (Perhaps I'll get around to making a page for them some day!)
  • Mention the result of the battle of Palonegro PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 21:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final remarks[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • @Rafael Uribe Uribe: Here is what I've come to so far regarding my review. The article looks like it's on the right path for being listed as a good article. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 21:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rafael Uribe Uribe: Still see my concerns about the references, date format, and the massive length of the lead. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 04:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @PizzaKing13: Sorry my friend, I hadn't finished all the edits a couple of nights ago because it got too late. I believe I have addressed everything here. I know there is a major issue with the formatting for the references. I'm really, really sorry about that and I'm hoping you don't mind helping me out with that. Wikipedia coding is the death of me. I added a new section for Bibliography and suddenly all of the links in the old reference section decided that they didn't want to work any more. I'm sure there's a very obvious and very easy solution, but alas, it eludes me. I'm hoping that the rest of it looks good. Let me know what you think! (And I sincerely appreciate your continued patience with me throughout this process.) Rafael Uribe Uribe (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Rafael Uribe Uribe: Yea I checked what was wrong and I fixed it. I explained what happened in the references section of this review. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 05:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @PizzaKing13: Thanks very much, I appreciate that immensely. I think the only other thing that remained was to reduce the number of citations in the lead, so that it wasn't redundant? I did that. Please let me know if you think it looks ready to go, or if there's anything else that I need to do first! Rafael Uribe Uribe (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Rafael Uribe Uribe: I think it's just about done and the article passes everything. Congratulations, I'll go ahead and pass the article's review! PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 03:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • @PizzaKing13: Hooray, amazing news! Thanks so much for your help with this process and your patience with me along the way. I am sure this will help me be a better Wikipedia editor moving forward and it'll certainly help me know what to look out for as I prepare future pages for Good Article status. Rafael Uribe Uribe (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Peralonso&oldid=1206179000"