The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2015 [1].

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the Texas Revolution series of articles, and covers what happened in between the Battle of the Alamo and the surrender of Mexican president and military general Antonio López de Santa Anna several weeks later at the Battle of San Jacinto. The civilian population fled in terror from the Mexican army, as did the government of the Republic of Texas. Texian commander-in-chief Sam Houston took his troops on the move, looking for a site to train his raw recruits, causing many to accuse him of being a coward on the run. Santa Anna lost Texas because he also believed Houston was afraid of him, and let his guard down.— Maile (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Not much to add here after looking over the two (2) prior A-level WP:MILHIST reviews. Just incredibly well referenced and researched. One can tell a lot of effort went into writing, documenting, and citing this article. Well done. — Cirt (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this. — Maile (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank:, thank you for this Support, and for your editing improvements. — Maile (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Maile66, following my review of this article, I find that it easily meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria as it is well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched; and its lede, structure, and consistent citations all follow Wikipedia style guidelines. I also completed an image review as follows and found that all media is good to go. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@West Virginian: Thanks for the review and the support. — Maile (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66:, you are quite welcome! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No spotchecks done.

• Ref 34 add (subscription required) template
• Ref 37: "Matamoros" not Magtamoros"
• Ref 46: Space needed after semicolon
• Ref 48: To what does "Efficient in the Cause (Stephen L. Harden)" refer?

The Poyo book referenced (and in the References) is a collection, with each chapter written by a different person. "Efficient in the Cause" is the chapter, and Stephen L. Hardin is the author of the chapter.

• Ref 73: "House" not "House"
• Ref 92: space after "144,"
• Ref 105: Error in source title
• Ref 147: Error in source title
• Ref 154: Source title does not appear on the link pages, so it is not clear what source we are reading
• Ref 157: space after "264,"
• Ref 165: "Yellow Stone" – two words
• List of sources: Spencer C Tucker is styled "Dr" – no one else is recognised in this way.

Subject to the above, references are properly formattedm and the sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Everything is taken care of, unless you have a different method of referencing a chapter within a collection. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably I'd put inverted commas around the chapter heading, otherwise fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inverted commas done. Thank you for your time on this. — Maile (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Do you have anything else to add, or are your finished with your comments here? — Maile (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time for a full review, but sources are OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support (with the usual disclaimer that I haven't checked the sources, however I've no reason to doubt accuracy). My usual comment on these Texas Revolution articles, that it would be useful to know if Mexican sources have the same perspective on events, stands; however, in light of the fact that es-wikipedia doesn't even appear to have a corresponding article, I'm willing to believe that the sources don't exist or aren't readily available in this case. ‑ iridescent 13:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.