Talk:Great Raid of 1840

message: 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)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: 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)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Our? Squaw? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of some Buffalo Hump text 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed the majority of Conclusion