Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Santo Tomas

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 00:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Santo Tomas

edit
(
)

Created/expanded by Arius1998 (talk). Self nom at 03:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  • This has all kinds of great potential for great hooks--the gold coins, the guy who was wounded worse than the general he saved... but the article in its current condition is not ready for the big time: it needs a serious rewriting. Historical context and immediate military context needs to be explained, and the language must be neutered a bit--there really shouldn't be "fortunately"s in an encyclopedic article, and many of the sentences have a non-native air about them, in word choice and syntax. The sourcing is a bit weak as well: this isn't really a reliable source by our standards, I think, and this, while nice, is the typical telegram-style battle report, which might have been completely reversed the next day. Better sources can be found, and if one has access to Kasaysayan: Journal of the National Historical Institute, Volume 1, Issue 4, one finds there also the story of the charging horse and the daring rescue. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Nominator is required to submit a quid pro quo (QPQ) review within a week's time, and is reminded that QPQ's are always required when submitting a DYK nomination after the first five. I see that work is being done to the article, which is great, but it is important to contribute to DYK if you wish also to ask others to work on your own nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • QPQ completed; complete re-review needed. Significant edits have been made since original review on September 6. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The QPQ was mine not theirs. They just made a comment after I'd approved. Secretlondon (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely right. This does not qualify as a QPQ, as it just echoed Secretlondon's already complete review. New QPQ needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Valid QPQ now done; complete re-review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Still issues with the QPQ, really. Secretlondon (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
It may not have been a great review, but we've given QPQ credit for ones with similar flaws by reviewers with far more experience. I'm inclined to call this good enough, and I'm the one who did the follow-up review that found the problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Secretlondon (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Article length, date and sources check out. Hook is referenced (I copied the inline citation to the hook sentence). This is good to go. Yazan (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The article claims that a wounded Avecilla ran across the field to save Luna (despite heavy wounds including in one leg!), but the snippets I can see from Google seem to indicate that he rode his horse over to Luna, got him up on the horse, and carried him from the battlefield that way. This needs to be addressed. Also, I think Drmies was quite right that this deserves a better hook than the originally proposed one: if the Avecilla feat can have an inline cite after the appropriate sentence, I think this would be much more effective:
  • I'm sorry, but when a problem with the article is pointed out, in this case the implausible statement in it that Avecilla ran across the field to save Luna (when it is not supported by the cited source), it is inappropriate for a subsequent review to ignore the problem and declare everything just fine. Until it is fixed, the article is not eligible for DYK, and if it is not fixed within the next few days, the article will be rejected. It would be a shame, but better than allowing such carelessness on the front page. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the proposed alternative is better. Also, the fact I read from the book states that only Luna had a horse, which, when shot down, the general became vulnerable to enemy fire. Avecilla had no horse. Maybe he did mount Luna on a horse beyond the battlefield. Arius1998 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Need a new reviewer. If that person is satisfied that the sources agree with Arius1998 regarding Avecilla, and is fine with ALT1, then I'll withdraw my objections. I've struck the original hook as uninteresting. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the statement that Avecilla had no horse. There are two sources which explicitly say that he did: "Alejandro Avecilla, who earlier saw his general fall, managed to ride swiftly towards him ... Avecilla carried the latter over to his horse and then in a matter of seconds sped away from the center of fire" (Rise and fall of Antonio Luna, p. 225); "Avecilla was the one who rode his horse on a gallop toward Luna to take him to safety" (Kasaysayan: Journal of the National Historical Institute, Volume 1, Issue 4, p. 96). That seems pretty clear to me. I've amended the article accordingly. With that change, and with the addition of "was" to ALT1, I think this is good to go. Prioryman (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Battle_of_Santo_Tomas&oldid=828903681"