Talk:Battle of Zacatecas (1914)

Division of the North West
"Villas forces were accordingly unable to move south from Zacatecas and the Division of the North West[discuss], commanded by Álvaro Obregón led the advance on Mexico City." Was this really the name of Obregon's force? This is sourced by the Atkin book and I don't have access to it. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The recently published (2019) book by Joe Lee Janssens "Strategy and Tatics of the Mexican Revolution" devotes considerably more attention to the military aspects of this period of Mexican history than more general works. It refers to Obregón's force as the "Army Corps of the Northwest", in contrast to Villa's "Division of the North". There is also an "Army Corps of the Northeast" - indicating the degree of sophistication achieved by the Constitutionalists in the final stages of this campaign. At any rate I have acted boldly and inserted "Obregón's Army Corps of the Northwest". Please delete if Janssens has it wrong.  Buistr (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for jumping in. I knew it was wrong as previously written, but I could not remember the correct name. I had read about this from a Pancho Villa bio more than 30 years ago. Carranza never trusted Villa completely. I think the classification of Obregón's unit as an "Army" and Villa's unit as a "Division" was a political move by Carranza to keep Villa at a lower rank compared to Obregón. This is probably addressed by Katz, but I have not read the whole book. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing problem addressed
Thanks for looking over the article, for making improvements, and pointing out the sourcing problem. I think I have addressed the sourcing issue. Part of the issue was the Spanish source cited: it did not do anything for the article other than shoehorn a piece of trivia. In any case, I expanded a compressed statement to give it context based on Katz's biography of Pancho Villa. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on the article. I have upgraded the assessment from stub to C class. I'm not sure if the coverage/detail is quite enough to meet the B class coverage requirements, although it would probably be close, IMO. The query about the division above would also probably need to be addressed before it could be assessed as B class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)