Talk:Great Raid of 1840

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of July 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: prose is well-written

2. Factually accurate?: article is well-sourced

3. Broad in coverage?: the article is complete

4. Neutral point of view?: all points of view are represented

5. Article stability? no edit wars

6. Images?: no copyright issues

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, and congratulations. — Argos'Dad 13:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I made multiple corrections myself throughout the article, including removing some vandalism and converting several inline citations to citation templates. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I'd recommend going through the article and seeing if there are any other errors I missed. The article would benefit from more sourcing, including some of the facts in "The Battle of Plum Creek" section. Go through the article and add sources for any statement that a reader may question about its verifiability. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 01:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Our? Squaw?

Some odd sounding bits. "Our"? Was this written by a Texan? "Squaw"? Offensive, right or wrong.

A single warrior took refuge in a stone house, refusing every offer of life sent him through the squaws and after killing several of our men

Our loss was 7 killed

a squaw was liberated and well mounted

In general reads like something from the 19th century. Pfly (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It reads exactly like that. You should've noticed that the odd text began "The Texas Sentinal of March 24th, 1840, gives the official account of a recent battle with the Comanches at San Antonio..." But User:Hara Jane didn't format the text correctly, so confusion's understandable. -LlywelynII (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That material was moved to Council House Fight, the event it describes, last September. Any bias is of course in the original account that's quoted. --CliffC (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of some Buffalo Hump text

I just took out this bit of text because I was skeptical about whether it was correct and checking the source given, found nothing to back it up. Here's the text removed:

"Buffalo Hump had lost total control of the raiding party. In theory, all loot belonged to the ranking war chief, who could hand it out as he chose. In reality, no war chief could have told the cheerful raiders that they had to give up the cloth, weapons, food, and horses that they knew would make them rich among their people."

The footnoted source is: War Chief Buffalo Hump. I see nothing there about the chief losing control of the party, or that loot belonged to him, or that the raiders were "cheerful", or that they would be "rich among their people" (that last sentence made me grimace). Since the source was not used elsewhere, I removed it too. Pfly (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Great Raid of 1840. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050711082454/http://www.gbso.net/Skyhawk/comanche.htm to http://www.gbso.net/Skyhawk/comanche.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630175749/http://www.historychannel.com/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=206146 to http://www.historychannel.com/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=206146
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509122616/http://www2.itexas.net/~teddun/tedspage.htm to http://www2.itexas.net/~teddun/tedspage.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Raid of 1840. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927181942/http://www.texfiles.com/lonestarquarterly/Dawn/buffalohump.htm to http://www.texfiles.com/lonestarquarterly/Dawn/buffalohump.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Great Raid of 1840

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisting per strong consensus on significant problems in the article. CMD (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how we can consider this adequately sourced. A 90 year old source titled "Savage Resistance to the Advancing White Frontier" clearly isn't going to be a decent source on this topic, TexasIndians.com looks questionable, and stuff like He was saved because of the Comanche reverence for the mad, a reverence shared by most Native American cultures is poorly supported (I'm not seeing that in the source in that footnote, for instance). This needs substantive work throughout. Hog Farm _Talk 20:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• The problems start at the lede, which serves as mostly a background introduction to the topic and not a summary of the article body as it should. The major claim of the article, that this "was the largest raid ever mounted by Native Americans on white cities in what is now the United States" is sourced a 1933 book without page numbers. Some areas are missing citations, and, as Hog's analysis above points out, the text seems to dip heavily into unsupported editorialism. Statements like But greed saved the Comanches in turn and While safe in the water, the refugees witnessed the destruction and looting of their town, unable to do a thing except curse them aren't really appropriate. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• The lead issue is sufficient to downgrade it in my opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The only positive thing I could say about this article is that it knows the Texas History Portal exists. This should be delisted ASAP. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Very poor referencing. Not even B Class. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yip, agree with all of the above, this is a long way from present GA standards. Zawed (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delist ASAP. Aside from the referencing, the wording is appalling. Also no conversions of imperial units to metric which should be bare minimum. Llammakey (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@GAR coordinators: - given the situation here and the strong consensus, can this be closed earlier than the normal 7 days? Hog Farm _Talk 14:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If there's a strong consensus that the article doesn't meet one criteria of the GAN criteria, then we can delist. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

No objections on my part. Having 7 contributors in good standing all agree on a delist with no opposition is a pretty strong consensus to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

Removed the majority of Conclusion

The conclusion was so poorly written that I removed the majority of it in favor of a simple statement. Tronner (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)