Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Central America under Mexican rule

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

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 promoted by Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Central America under Mexican rule edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

Central America under Mexican rule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article covers a one and a half year period from 1821 to 1823 when the First Mexican Empire (somewhat) controlled most of the nations of modern-Central America. It outlines the struggle between the Mexican government and monarchists who wanted to annex Central America against republicans and nationalists who wanted to remain independent, eventually resulting in Central America regaining its independence in 1823. This article was built entirely from scratch as little to nothing of its content existed on Wikipedia prior to July 2022, has passed a Good Article nomination in November 2022, and recently underwent an extensive copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors this month; I believe that this article meets all 5 criteria for promotion to A-class. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 20:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Potential copyright/licensing issues
  • I fixed some licensing issues by adding PD-US tags.
  • File:ActaIndepElSalvador.JPG if this is kept needs the licensing for the underlying work (see below)
  • File:Agustin I of Mexico.jpg, File:JoaquindeOreamuno.JPG
  • File:Gabino Gaínza.jpg Needs more information on provenance (ie. country of origin, publication date, author's date of death) to determine copyright status
  • File:General Don Felipe Codallos (cropped).jpg it's not clear why the US copyright expired. When was this first published?
  • File:Ferdinand VII Coin.jpg needs license tag for underlying coin in addition to the existing tag for the photograph
Potential sourcing issues
  • File:Bandera del Primer Imperio Mexicano.svg, File:Coat of arms of Mexico (1823–1864, 1867–1893).svg, File:Coat of Arms of the First Mexican Empire.svg, File:Flag of the United Provinces of Central America.svg — needs source for these being the correct flag / coa for what it represents
  • File:Political divisions of Mexico 1821 (location map scheme).svg, File:First Mexican Empire (orthographic projection).svg need source for these boundaries existing at the time
Other
  • File:ActaIndepElSalvador.JPG—it's ugly and is there really no scan of this you could upload? (Scans do not create copyright—see {{PD-scan}})
  • File:Vicente Filisola.jpg why is this in the article twice? I'd remove the first image because two images of the same guy is not adding anything
(t · c) buidhe 05:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to do to source the images but this is what I found:
I don't know what's wrong with these since they seem to have all the licensing they need
  • File:JoaquindeOreamuno.JPG
  • File:General Don Felipe Codallos (cropped).jpg it says 1838
  • Agustin I of Mexico.jpg I presume it should be fine as it is since it passed a Valued Image nomination
Everything else, I don't know
@Buidhe: PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 08:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you mention should be added to the image description; it's pretty easy if you go to commons and edit the image description.
Added.
File:JoaquindeOreamuno.JPG is stated to be copyrighted by the uploader, but this is not true. It should use PD-scan and appropriate public domain license tags for the image to show it is both PD in Mexico and the US.
Fixed?
File:General Don Felipe Codallos (cropped).jpg 1838 appears to be the date of creation, not publication
There is no information about publication
File:Agustin I of Mexico.jpg needs a PD-US license tag, regardless of Valued status (t · c) buidhe 14:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. @Buidhe: PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 20:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Thanks, I appreciate it. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 04:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: If possible, could you have another look over this, and confirm if you're happy. It looks to me like some of your points remain outstanding, but I'm not 100%. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, while some US tags were added, they are missing rationales for why they would be public domain in US (eg information about publication before 1927). Another editor might be likely to just assume that copyright doesn't apply, as I would probably do if the paintings were any older. (t · c) buidhe 14:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PizzaKing13 The image review is all that is outstanding for this to be promoted; could you continue to liaise with Buidhe to resolve? Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Added tags PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 18:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tracked down an old publication of a different Agustin I portrait, swapped it in, removed another image without publication info, and as long as no other changes are made I think we're good to go PizzaKing13, Harrias (t · c) buidhe 02:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cplakidas edit

Reserving a spot here. Know next to nothing about this topic, but it looks very interesting. Constantine ✍ 14:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • later the Mexican emperor as this is relevant for understanding the timeframe, add a date for when Iturbide became emperor
    • Added date
  • Despite the acceptance by the Guatemalan-based government in favor of annexation 'in favor of annexation' is redundant
    • Removed
  • a coup by monarchists in March 1823 pro-Mexico monarchists?
    • Yes, clarified
  • [[Ochomogo War|Battle of Ochomogo]] looks WP:EASTEREGGy. Also, please add date (April 1823)
Independence of New Spain
  • both Europeans and mestizos. perhaps 'people of European descent' for clarity, and briefly explain what a mestizo is.
    • Added
Central American infighting over annexation
  • Aside from the shared legacy of Spanish imperial control and geographical adjacency, what were the reasons for 'the prospect of annexation to Mexico' emerging? Did the Central American colonies see themselves as somehow close to the Mexican ones? Financial concerns? Protection against a Spanish reconquest? Iturbide's letter hints at some of that, but some less biased view from a modern RS would be necessary here. It should be explained because a) to an outside reader, it is surprising that people would want to give away their independence, and b) the dissension about accepting the annexation or not is left unclear, apart from the republican/monarchist divide.
    • I'll get back to this
      • I think the wording of that sentence was a bit misleading. The "prospect" of annexation was more meant to be "the mere thought of annexation" rather than "the benefits of annexation". I've reworded that using "idea" instead of "prospect". Regardless, I added that those in favor of annexation argued it would help the region's economy (Carpenter), as well as ideological alignments and belief Mexico would help defend Central America's independence (Kenyon). PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 22:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The added explanation is good, thanks!
  • the K'iche' were in favor of annexation contextualize a bit who/what the K'iche' were, as most readers won't be familiar with them (or why their opinion was important).
    • Added that they're the largest indigenous group in Guatemala. Basically the only notable thing about their opinion was that they had an opinion at all.
      • Was the addition reverted? I don't see it.
        • I had multiple tabs open when editing so I guess I type this into the wrong tab. Added now.
  • Manuel José Arce, a Salvadoran politician, was one of the primary opponents to annexation and a leading republican figure Suggest moving 'a leading republican figure' after 'a Salvadoran politician'.
    • Moved
  • He was arrested for calling the last person mentioned is Barriere
    • Fixed
  • publish Agustín's letter publicly repetition/redundancy
    • What about it is redundant?
      • Publish publicly ;).
        • Fixed.
  • briefly gloss/explain what an open cabildo is
    • Added
  • The result of the open cabildos was a decision in favor of complete annexation without any conditions. I see that 67 municipalities did not vote. This and the reasons why should be mentioned.
    • Added
  • The Consultive Junta was later dissolved on 21 February 1822
    • Removed
  • Are the unlinked signatories of the Act of Union otherwise unknown/unimportant? Even if no articles exist on the English or other wikis, they should still be WP:REDLINKed if there is the prospect of them having an article in the future.
Annexation and subsequent separatist conflicts
  • The only active resistance against the annexation was in Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Nicaragua does this really qualify as 'only'? Three out of five provinces?
    • Removed only
  • under the command of Chilean Sergeant a sergeant in command of an expedition? Where there no officers available?
    • I guess. Aceña says that Lieutenant Colonel Manuel José Arce defeated Sergeant Nicolás Abós Padilla
      • Just to clarify: there are no details on why a sergeant was chosen?
        • No, only that he was in charge.
  • Filísola recognized that attempting to subjugate the rebel army would be difficult why? due to public opposition? terrain? guerrilla tactics as mentioned below? These are implied, but left unstated, and given the disparity just mentioned, it should be explained.
    • I'll get back to this
      • The sentence prior to that explains why. I've moved it and connected the sentences with a semicolon. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 22:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • they later surrendered to Filísola near the town of Gualcince on 21 February 1823.
    • Removed
  • The Electoral Junta was established in Costa Rica on 5 January 1822 after the Interim Junta was abolished The Interim Junta is mentioned for the first time, and the reason why it was replaced is not mentioned. Suggest to start the section with a brief intro of the Interim Junta.
    • Added context about the Interim Junta. Sources don't give a reason for why the Electoral Junta was established but it probably has something to do with it being founded on the date Central America was officially annexed.
  • In October 1822 some Costa Ricans became frustrated with Agustín when he abolished the Constituent Congress without a new constitution being drafted. Suggest reversing this, e.g. 'When Agustín abolished the Constituent Congress in [date], without a new constitution being drafted, some Costa Ricans became frustrated with the Mexican emperor'
    • Changed
  • absolute leader of Costa Rica 'absolute' has connotations of absolutism/authoritarianism; perhaps 'supreme'?
    • Changed
  • José Anacleto Ordóñez, a Nicaraguan soldier and merchant, launched a rebellion against Mexican rule on 16 January 1823. what were the motives here?
    • Added motive
      • Well yes, obviously he was discontented, otherwise he wouldn't revolt. But was the motivation nationalism, republicanism, personal differences with pro-Mexican figures?
        • Added nationalist descriptor.
  • Non-English technical terms like 'caudillo' should be enclosed in {{lang|es|}}
Independence from Mexico
  • Agustín was forced to abdicate the Mexican throne as a result of the aforementioned plot, or due to other factors?
    • The plot, added
  • Central America's independence led many Mexican provinces to desire increased regional autonomy...stated that they would declare independence from Mexico unless a new congress was established and how was this resolved? It is left unclear how this situation continued/was resolved/shaped Mexican federalism. This should be briefly covered.
Government
  • My comment above about redlinking people also applies to the list of legislature members.
Economy
  • 3,138,451 pesos of foreign debt can this be put in terms that a modern reader would understand? Preferably in 2023 USD equivalents?
    • Sources don't list a currency conversion and I don't know how to convert currency myself, so I don't think so? PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 22:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  • Images are missing WP:MOSALT
    • I'm not that familiar with image alt text so please let me know if I did it correctly. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 22:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The alt text should not be just a repetition of the caption, but describe what the image looks like. E.g. Iturbide's portrait could be 'Oil painting of a standing man in early 19th-centuy military uniform'.
        • What about now?
  • Bibliography is fairly extensive, and looks to be coming from WP:RS. I am not familiar with the topic and its scholarship, but the cited work look appropriate.

That's it, at least for a first pass. I found the article easy to read and understand, and learned a lot in the process. Well done. Constantine ✍ 19:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thank you for your comments! I hope I've addressed most of them. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 22:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PizzaKing13: Thanks for the swift response. Have crossed out the items done, and responded to the rest. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Changes made. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 05:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PizzaKing13: changes look good. Supporting, and thanks for an interesting read. Constantine ✍ 11:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback! PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 19:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hawkeye7 edit

Way out of my field of expertise, but there is a lot of good work here and and it is unfortunate that reviewers have been thin on the ground. Looks fine to me, but some comments to demonstrate that I read it.

  • We don't normally link the names of present-day countries. (MOS:OVERLINK)
    • Done
  • A bold item in an article means that it links back to this article via a redirect. Captaincy General of Guatemala does not, so unbolden and link to its own article.
    • Done
  • Link Emperor of Mexico, United States Secretary of State
    • Done
  • Unlink usurp
    • Done
  • Merge the final two paragraphs of the lead to bring the paragraph count back to the standard four. (WP:BETTER/GRAF1)
    • Done
  • "commanded by Brigadier Vicente Filísola" Should be "commanded by Brigadier General Vicente Filísola". You could link brigadier general
    • Done
  • "It also issued special protections" Since "it" here refers to the Plan of the Three Guarantees, this doesn't make sense
    • Fixed
  • "Filísola exited Guatemala City" Suggest "Filísola left Guatemala City"
    • Done
  • "The Central American federal government eventually defaulted on its debt the mid-1820s." Suggest in the mid-1820s.
    • Fixed

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the comments. That should address all of them. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 04:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to support. I tweaked some of the sources to remove some warnings that cannot be seen without special options. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

G'day PK13, I'll take a look at this in a few bites.

Lead (I will come back to this at the end as well)
  • Suggest you clarify if you are referring to the modern nations or nations/regions existing at the time
    • Done
      • OK, I get that much, but this topic should be explained, at least in the first instance, by reference to the political subdivisions that existed at the time, not the current polities (even if they have the same names). Am I to understand that the Spanish Empire had a colony known as the "Captaincy General of Guatemala" which consisted of six intendancies (or regions)?
        • Reworded to From January 1822 to July 1823, the Captaincy General of Guatemala, a former Spanish colony, was controlled by the First Mexican Empire, and briefly, the Supreme Executive Power. The captaincy general consisted of five provinces—Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua—and they were the five southernmost provinces of the Mexican Empire. The incorporation of Central America brought Mexico to the height of its territorial extent. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 18:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forcing Mexican and allied Guatemalan soldiers to forcefully subjugate" forcing/forcefully. Suggest "and Mexican and allied Guatemalan soldiers used force to subjugate"
    • Done
  • suggest "Just over a year was spent on a military campaign that defeated the resistance and ended in the annexation of El Salvador in February 1823"
    • Done
  • link coup d'etat
    • Done
  • suggest piping Second Central American Civil Wars so that only "Second" is red.
    • Done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this up and I await your further comments. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 19:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Independence of New Spain
  • Rather than "It included the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. The plan also issued special protections to the Catholic Church, which would also be declared as the state religion; to the army; and to both people of European descent and mestizos (people of mixed-European and indigenous ancestry)" I suggest making it clearer that these are the three guarantees. Something like: "It contained three key provisions: the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, that Catholicism would be the state religion and would receive special protections, and that the army and people of both European descent and mestizos (people of mixed-European and indigenous ancestry) would also receive special protections." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to that
  • state Gabino Gainza's role at the time. Captain-General of Guatemala?
    • Added
  • also, was Gainza really opposed to independence? His article suggests he was a signatory?
    • Gaínza opposed independence because he wanted to remain with the Spanish monarchy but changed his mind when told he could stay as captain general (Stanger 1932, p. 32). Added that context and reworded the sentences around it to make the wording less awkward.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Munro really doesn't support "became semi-independent nations". The book describes them as provinces and then states, not nations (or semi-independent). Unless I am missing something? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed to say that they were members of a Central American country (Munro 1918, pp. 25–26) and changed the reference to reflect that. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 03:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Central American infighting over annexation
  • "Spanish military officer Gabino Gainza" as he has already been introduced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed
  • What is meant by "Meanwhile, more nationalist and republican politicians"? That there were more of them, or they were nationalist to a greater extent than the monarchists etc? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter, removed "more"
  • say where the cities of León and Comayagua are. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added
  • "The independence of Central America was not considered to be a priority by Spain, due to its relative insignificance in comparison to their other colonies of New Granada, New Spain, and Peru, which they were still fighting for control of." But wasn't Central America part of New Spain? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specified that the Spanish were more worried about northern New Spain (Mexico)
  • "did not have an opinion" I expect no-one asked them? Can you make this clearer? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded to say that most indigenous Central Americans didn't care about the annexation question since it didn't affect them
  • "The result of the open cabildos was a decision in favor of complete annexation without any conditions." it was not quite so cut and dried as that, was it? The para after the table makes it clear that 67 cabildos weren't even counted. I suggest removing this and letting the more nuanced para after the table tell the story. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • More or less yea it was basically like that. "Of the one hundred seventy, one hundred four were for annexation according to Iturbide's letter [...] the public was assured that the one hundred four voting unconditionally for annexation constituted an absolute majority of the population" (Stanger 1932, p. 38), or at least that's what Gaínza claimed but that's how it went into the historical record ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. + I moved the sentence you quoted to the paragraph after the table.
  • I also think the table gives the wrong impression. Esp the percentage. Shouldn't it be presented as a percentage of the total number of cabildos rather than the number of cabildos counted at the point the declaration was made? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed
  • were the fourteen signatories all members of the Consultive Junta? If not, what was their purported authority to sign? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added from Munro 1918, p. 24 that they were politicians and religious leaders. Also there is no information that I can find on who was on the junta other than Gaínza was its leader :,) PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 05:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Annexation and subsequent separatist conflicts
  • suggest dedicated→committed
    • Done
  • the Guatemalan troops were commanded by a sergeant? How many of them were they? What about the rank of his replacement? Is this known?
    • 1.) Yes 2.) Source doesn't say 3.) Colonel
  • suggest "Filísola sent a message of the armistice to Agustín"→"Filísola advised Agustín of the armistice"
    • Changed
  • suggest "imperial throne of the Mexican Empire" imperial=Empire
    • Changed
  • suggest "Additionally, oOn 10 November 1822"
    • Changed
  • "Before Filísola's forces invaded El Salvador" seems out of chronological order
    • I don't know where to put it without it being thrown in randomly since the date the envoy was sent isn't mentioned.
  • How did Filisola's army grow from 2K to 5K in less than a month?
    • Sources don't say
  • suggest "all the while"

Down to Civil war in Costa Rica. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independence from Mexico
  • In general terms, where you are giving dates that follow each other in the same year, and in the same paragraph, you can drop the year, ie 13 January 1822 then 31 January. You should check this throughout the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mexican throne and go into exile">"Mexican throne and went into exile" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Agustin disestablished the Mexican Constituent Congress in October 1822, how did it start issuing edicts again? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mentioned that it was reestablished in February 1823
  • "On 18 June 1823, the Mexican congress" is this the Mexican Constituent Congress or a new body? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in a general sense throughout the article, I'm finding it difficult to understand who was running which regions and on what authority. Were the regional governors appointed by Agustin, were they legacy appointments of Spain, or were they just local strongmen? It would be good to draw threads through the article to explain how a particular junta came about, whether by seizing power, local notables "selecting" a group or individual, or by approval from Agustin. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Costa Rica: "Civil war in Costa Rica" (added parenthetical for Barroeta, added info for his 4 successors) explains everything asked for
    • El Salvador: "Central American infighting over annexation" paragraph 3, "Suppression of Salvadoran resistance" (added mention for Filísola) + "Abdication of Agustín" paragraph 3 explain everything asked for
    • Guatemala: "Suppression of Salvadoran resistance" paragraphs 1 and 2 explain everything asked for
    • Honduras: Not mention (nothing relevant to the article's topic occurred)
    • Nicaragua: "Unrest in Nicaragua" (added parenthetical for Saravia) explains everything asked for
  • So, Filisola encouraged the formation of a Central American congress, but then suddenly there was going to be a meeting of it? How was it formed etc? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither Kenyon nor Stanger nor Ayala Benítez nor Meléndez Chaverri provide more details to elaborate on this. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 23:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Government
  • this section clarifies matters about the local regional governance to an extent, but it is still confusing above, and my point about who was in charge, where and when in the narrative stands.
Economy
  • "decadence" is an odd usage of the word. In such circumstances, "decay" would probably be more appropriate.
    • The exact quote from the text is "The decline probably commenced before independence, for in 1822 the provisional government was seeking advice on what to do about the “state of extreme decadence” of the textile industry." (Smith 1963, p. 506.) Should I change it to "state of extreme [decay]"?
  • I don't understand why not making loans to miners would affect the amount of money being produced.
    • I don't either, but that's what the government commission said. "But the real cause of the mint’s inactivity, the commission found, was the lack of a plan to encourage production by making loans (rescates) to miners." (Smith 1963, p. 498) The text doesn't elaborate further. My best guess would be that they were silver miners so that the mint couldn't make more silver coins, and a little later the text says that the mint undervalued silver. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 02:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, I'm done until you've addressed the above, after which I will just do a last check of the lead. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I kinda forgot about this for a few weeks, but everything should be addressed now. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 23:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • You don't need to link Guatemala etc (MOS:OVERLINK)
    • Fixed
  • Some publishers and locations are linked and some are not.
    • Fixed
  • All references are high quality and nicely formatted.
  • Some have OCLCs and some do not.
    • Added, though there were some where nothing popped up
  • Rodríguez & Edmundo (1993) is a journal article in Historia Mexicana - move to the journals section
    • Fixed
  • Zoradia V(1997) is a book - move to the books section
    • Fixed
  • Spot checks: 8, 21 - ok
    fn 42: Chiapas separation from Guatemala on 26 September nis sourced, but cannot find the bit about 200 troops
    fn 43 (now fn 42) is supposed to be the reference for the 200 soldiers. Moved around the wording so that there isn't a splice in the references
    fn 103, 115: Cannot find cited information
    103 removed
    115 (now 114) is citing the name "Captaincy General of Guatemala" as being the captaincy general's name. [52][55][56][58] cite "At the regional level, the five provinces were organized into the" if that's what the problem is. Added Munro 1918 p 24 which does say that the five provinces were part of the captaincy general.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Points addressed. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 04:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and update, I found the rest of the OCLC numbers after a second sweep. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 04:28, 25 October 2023 (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=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Central_America_under_Mexican_rule&oldid=1181978367"