Talk:Antonio Ricaurte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Antonio Ricaurte was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 9, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 11, 2007 Good article nominee Listed August 21, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: From Wikipedia's quality scale page... a B rated article "...has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR)...Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with". I'm reverting this article to GA status as it has none of these problems. This article is wikified, has a good treatment of the subject, has no obvious problems, gaps, excessive information etc. In general, it's adequate for most purposes which is what a GA article requires. For the wikiproject biography, I'm leaving the B rating as it's easier for a third party to intervene and give a new rate. Contrarywise, in wikiproject Colombia, there's no clear mechanism through which a third user could be compelled to reasses this rating. There are not many users who are members of that wikiproject anyways so I think rating this article is basically between you and I Fernando. If you think this article has problems which deserve a B rating please point them out here and fix them if you can...or otherwise just let it be. Rosa 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) okay, so I've just nominated it...let's see for a while what happens. Rosa 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (edit)

	Colombia Portal This article is within the scope of the Colombian WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Colombia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Click here and join us!.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Contents 1 Nice 2 Explanation 3 GA 3.1 GA Review 4 Successful good article nomination

[edit] Nice

Good job, Rosa.--I am greener than you! ^{(Lima - Charlie - Over)} 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks :)Rosa 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

"It was later estimated the patriots lost less than ten times the number of soldiers as did the royalists."

The above means: royalists lost x soldiers, patriots lost <10x, which is absurd and obviously not correct (and would not be worth saying if it was). The reworded text says what was meant: patriots lost x soldiers, royalists lost >10x soldiers. —Cuiviénen 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's neither absurd nor incorrect, it's just a redaction style. It's exactly the same as saying the following, "royalists lost more than ten times the number of soldiers as did the patriots". I'll let it go, as you seem to be very adamant about this particular subject. It's not "much better English" as you stated in your edit summary however.Rosa 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

to become a GA needs to be nominated first WP:GAN--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

...silly paperwork... Rosa 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of July 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: It is well written, however, words in another language needs to be italic per MOS.

2. Factually accurate?: Factually acurate

3. Broad in coverage?: Not a lot of words, but it is still informative.

4. Neutral point of view?: No POV sighted

5. Article stability? History check shows no recent edit war.

6. Images?: Images demonstrate the context, and are well captioned.

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. — -Flubeca^Talk 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm promoting it, even though it was really close to a fail. Needs more information. -Flubeca^Talk 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He's a minor character in the war, there's not a lot more about him anywhere. Thanks for reviewing the article. Rosa 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This article will now be delisted per poor reference format and prose OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition to that, the first reference is giving me a "Forbidden" and 404 error, and the usage of "herioc" in the intro is entirely subjective and non-neutral as it stands. Homestarmy 00:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It gave me a 403 error. Reference #3 and 5 are actually the same reference! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)