Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Great Raid of 1840/1
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 • • 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)