Talk:Battle of Ciudad Juárez (1911)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hello, Reviewer: Buggie111 (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC). This, (my second GAN review) is part of WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/April 2010. On with the review:

Disambiguations: none found

Dead links (link rot): none found.

Taking over review: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * While the fusion of Madero's, Villa's and Orozco's men did result in number of troops sufficient to form a force capable of fighting professional soldiers in pitched encounters, the federals still had advantage in terms of training and discipline. "Federals" is not correct, "federal troops" is; "federales" is correct. ✅
 * only possible exit for the besieged being the northern path  do you actually mean to use the word "path" here? or do you actually mean "route" or "road"? ✅
 * I suggest that you study User:Tony1 to get some good advice on writing for an encyclopaedia. WP:UPE is also worth a read.
 * The rebels consequently developed an effective strategy in order to circumvent Navarro's well placed machine gun nests and street barricades.. Consequently of what? ✅
 * ' 'A more indirect consequence, with great implications for the future, arose from the disagreements that occurred between Madero on one hand, and Villa and Orozco on the other, during and after the battle.'' Unnecessarily complex sentence. Try writing in plain English. ✅
 * The end of the battle had two main outcomes. The immediate effect was that the fall of the city helped convince Porfirio Díaz to agree to the revolutionaries' demand for his resignation. Prompted by Limantour, two days after end of the battle Díaz signed the Treaty of Ciudad Juárez with Madero, and ten days after the battle, he resigned, and went into exile in France.[1][10] This ended the first stage of the Mexican Revolution, and at the same time made it clear that even well garrisoned troops were not invulnerable to guerrilla armies. So one outcome is mentioned, what was the other? ✅
 * After being unsatisfied with the positions he was offered in the Madero government, and angry at the fact that Madero was asking him to fight Zapata, in March 1912, less than a year after the battle of Ciudad Juárez, Orozco formally declared himself in rebellion against Madero. plain English please. ✅
 * Overall, rather badly written, uneccessarily complex sentences, without clarity or focus. Please rewrite in plain English. ✅
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I assume good faiith for the sources.
 * Only two sources have been used. Are there no Spanish language sources available?  Contemporary news reports? It seems rather narrow to focus on just two books.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There is actually very little about the battle in this article. The rebels use dyanmite to blow up adobe house, The defenders ran out of water. m The rebels rotated their troops, there was dissension amongst the victors. Need some further explanation of the bit about Orozco attacked from the north and Villa from the south. Both of them led their troops parallel to the US border so that neither their shots, nor those of the town's garrison were likely to cross on to the American side. as the border here appears to be roughly East West, so how could they have been attacking form the North and the South? There could be more detail of the fighting, number of dead and wounded, number of prisoners taken
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.

6b comment= Some need alts
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am going to place this nomination on hold,a nd would like to see substantial progress being made in the next seven days, otherwise it will fail. This is an interesting and well documented event and it deserves through and full coverage in Wikipedia. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your hard work, I am happy to list this as a good article now. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am going to place this nomination on hold,a nd would like to see substantial progress being made in the next seven days, otherwise it will fail. This is an interesting and well documented event and it deserves through and full coverage in Wikipedia. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your hard work, I am happy to list this as a good article now. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Alts added (not sure this is the right place to comment).radek (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * alt text, whilst not being a bad thing is NOT a GA criterion. I came here from WP:GAN as this is mrked there as a 2nd opinion request, but I see no review has been done yet, so I can't leave any comment. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I now see that the original reviewer appears to have withdrawn, so I will take over. I shall leave a review tomorrow (15 April), or rather later today!. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to address these issues shortly (today or tomorrow). Thanks.radek (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. Thanks, these are all good points. My excuse is that I was finishing the article up late at night and didn't proof read some things. Anyway, I've rewritten the portions you highlighted and tried to simplify and break up long sentences. Let me know if this works.

Re 2. Undoubtedly there are Spanish sources out there, unfortunately my Spanish is too basic for met utilize them in a meaningful way. The reason there are only two sources listed is because these two cover the battle in some detail. There's plenty other sources out there but for the most part they replicate what's found in Katz and McLynn. I'll add some inlines from other sources though for completeness. Otherwise I can add a "Further Reading" section or something similar.radek (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked another source for info on the battle - it has a bit more detail. I will add more text shortly.radek (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Re ''Orozco attacked from the north and Villa from the south. Both of them led their troops parallel to the US border''. I wish I had an image here to illustrate. I changed "from" to "in". Basically Orozco attacked the north of the city but led the attack along the border and ditto for Villa in the south.radek (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Add: I made the following image to illustrate though it may be a little too crude to include in the article.