Talk:Antonio Ricaurte

message: Good job, Rosa.--I am greener than you! (Lima - Charlie - Over) 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks :)Rosa 18:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: to become a GA needs to be nominated first WP:GAN--F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...silly paperwork... Rosa 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: 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. 
— -FlubecaTalk 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  This article will now be delisted per poor reference format and prose OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  It gave me a 403 error. Reference #3 and 5 are actually the same reference! OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination 

message: Substituted at 08:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment comment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Antonio Ricaurte. 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/20070524044309/http://www.glrbv.org.ve:80/Proceres%20Masones/Antonio%20Ricaurte.htm to http://www.glrbv.org.ve/Proceres%20Masones/Antonio%20Ricaurte.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070508172202/http://www.simon-bolivar.org:80/bolivar/bat_sn_mateo.html to http://www.simon-bolivar.org/bolivar/bat_sn_mateo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified