Talk:Ojo de Agua Raid

Latest comment: 13 years ago by XavierGreen in topic GA Review
Good articleOjo de Agua Raid has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 16, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 18, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that on October 21, 1915, a band of Mexicans invaded the United States and conducted a raid on Ojo de Agua in Texas as part of the Plan de San Diego?

Orphaned reference edit

Hi. Good work on this article. I have one observation: Note # 5, "US Army Armor School, p. 239" does not appear to be identified fully in the References section. Would it be possible to add these details, please? Also, I've made a few changes, mainly just copy editing/fixing typos etc. Please review and tweak as you feel necessary. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added the ref to the ref section, i had a feeling i forgot something when i fifrst posted the article now i know what it was lol. The changes you made all are excellent.XavierGreen (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Cheers, keep up the good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Raid on Ojo de Agua/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteriaReply

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
    Add place of publication to refs.
    Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    1 missing cite.
    Added.XavierGreen (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
  • I think i've fixed the issues above, thanks for your review!XavierGreen (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply