Gregorio Cortez was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 1, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles United States: Old West / Mexican-Americans Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Mexican-Americans task force.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mdcaron, Lindsey2478, Lhorne2024, ZionMoore, Zac.israel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just started this but I need a little more time.--Rockero 04:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway you would agree to remove the word bandit from the article? Also is there really a need to put this under the American outlaw category? Gregorio Cortez's contributions to civil rights and American society can always be argued, and far too much of his story is mere legend, but I really doubt he was ever a criminal. The word "bandit" just seems to be brought up far too many times in articles concerning "bad" mexican americans. Great job on everything else though.Mosquito-001 00:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a preferable option would be to write the social bandit article, which would explain how conquered people are marginalized legally, basically making any action on their part in their favor an illegal act, and that many social bandits become folk heroes as symbols of resistance. Then we could link to that article instead of Outlaw#bandit. How are you Mosquito?--Rockero 08:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should mention the Bob Marley song.

Am I missing something? I have read the "incident" section several times in two days and for the life of me I can not see why the sheriff needed to open fire. Could not figure it out in the movie either. Is it me, or is that section very unclear? Jm546 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this section, I'm confused. It says "in which Cortez was supposedly asked if he had recently acquired a caballo, or a stallion, and Cortez answered he had acquired a yegua, or a mare, a word which the deputy did not understand." However, both Romaldo and Gregorio were there. Whom did the deputy ask? We should clarify.(Kirin-rex (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gregorio Cortez. 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/20060901103453/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/mexican_songs/cortez.cfm to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/mexican_songs/cortez.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia, I'm working on revamping this page for a Chicano Literature course at UBC.

Gregorio Cortez Information Box: Add more detail in general. Me and my group have found a supposed picture of Cortez, we will add it if it is legal.

Background Ideas: Give names to parents, family, and any other key characters. Reference Valeriano, Gregorio's son, from "With His Pistol in His Hand" as he gives detail insight to the background of Cortez. More information needed on Gregorio rather than Tómas.

Create another subheading: Background of Political and Social climate of the Border. With this section, we could discuss the landscape, both physically and societally, of life on the border. Could be very important to give readers insight of society that created Gregorio Cortez. Negative beliefs about both groups (Texas Rangers and Mexicans).

The Incident details: Need more description of the event. Take ideas from "With His Pistol in His Hand" and do further research. Also include newspaper reports at the time. ALSO DO NOT AMALGAMATE THE TWO INCIDENTS

Create Subheading: The Battle of Belmont. Include this important battle. Give information from newspapers, reporters, courts, and the officers themselves to give all point of views.

BREAK UP FLIGHT AND CAPTURE into 2 separate subheadings.

Cortez's Flight: Talk about tactics used by Cortez, the number of horses used by him, and the area that he covered.

The Capture Of Gregorio Cortez: Talk about El Teco, the man who told the police of his whereabouts. Talk about different opinions and point of views about the capture.

Add Subheading: Court Proceedings: Talk of money raised by people. Support of both Mexican and American citizens. Give examples of court reports, newspapers, and the problem of translation by the officers.

Prison and Pardon: Talk about Cortez's time in prison; how long he spent there, where they moved him, and his experience/behaviour in the prison system. Also, discuss his pardoning. Give information about the Governer and the beliefs surrounding him.

Post-prison life and Death: Give more information about his efforts in the Mexican Revolution. Also, clarify the cause of death. Talk about how long it supposedly killed him, and do not say that he definitely DID die from poisoning.

Add Subheading: Legacy and Inspiration amongst the Border Mexican community: Talk of how his life inspired Mexicans and what important parts of his life transformed into El Corrido de Gregorio Cortez.

The Legend: Use "With His Pistol in His Hand" and information from the many verses of the border ballad to give insight into how the legend was created and transformed over time. Talk about him representing the average Mexican man, speak of the importance of the sorrel mare, and address the significance of him defending his right with his pistol in his hand.

In Song, Literature, and Film: Describe the songs, literature, and films in more detail. Talk about what they got right and what they got wrong. Talk about the important points each piece of art highlights and discuss how and why these works changed even in the slightest.

Add more references as we go. Pechodor13 and maymolina contributed to this revision plan.

OVERALL CLEAN UP THE PAGE, CLARIFY ERRORS, AND ADD MORE DETAIL TO THE STORY AND LEGEND OF GREGORIO CORTEZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chr66 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is our conversation area for any questions or concerns regarding the article. Looking forward to fixing this article up!

History of the region

Valerio-Jiménez, O. S., & e-Duke Books Scholarly Collection 2012. (2013;2012;). River of hope: Forging identity and nation in the rio grande borderlands. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. (Chapter 4 and 6)

Alonzo, A. C. (1998). Tejano legacy: Rancheros and settlers in south texas, 1734-1900 (1st ed.). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.(Chapter 4).

Levario, M. A., & Project Muse University Press eBooks. (2012). Militarizing the border: When mexicans became the enemy (1st ed.). College Station: Texas A&M University Press. (Chapter 1)

History of the Cortez's family

Alvear, C. L. (2006). Crossing country and county borders: The cortez family's movement north from northern mexico to south and central texas, 1851–1901

About the Movie

Sunness, S., & YOUNG, R. (1984). The ballad of gregorio cortez: AN INTERVIEW WITH ROBERT YOUNG. Cinéaste, 13(4), 39-40.

Sunness, S. (1984). the ballad of gregorio cortez. Cinéaste, 13(4), 39.

Elitzik, P. (1984). The ballad of gregorio cortez. New York: Cineaste Publishers, Inc.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pechodor13 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

I reverted this large-scale deletion by User:Bhockey10, as it seems to me rather brusque to say simply that it is "fluff." Please discuss such drastic changes here. Thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jbmurray:, Thanks for reaching out, as stated on my talk page, the RV was part of WP:BRD and not done in bad spirit. with large sections lacking citations/ref also per WP:VER Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. My edit summary of rving "fluff" is a shortform reference to WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:UNDUE. It also include more than suffiecient context stating "removed extensive fluff and info outside of the biographical subject of the article." The Background section was devoid of any mention of the biographical subject and also covered in separate articles such as History of the Texas Ranger Division, History of Texas, Texas-American relations, and others. The background section could be briefly recapped in a properly cited sentence or short paragraph with proper Wikilinks in the “Early Life” section to help establish the era, but a full historical review of geo-political climate in the 50 years before the life Gregorio Cortez is entirely outside the scope of this particular article. WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:MOSBIO and WP:BIODD are clear on the issue and how biographical articles should be structured. Essentially it breaks down to a chronologically organized article on the biographical subject. For more influential people, a legacy, in pop culture, or other similar section postmortem impact is appropriate. In addition this article suffers from multiple issues related to WP:NOTESSAY- the current version of the article is largely structured in academic essay format with poor sourcing, WP:NPOV issues, poor inline cites/WP:VER, possible WP:OR, etc...--Bhockey10 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is helpful. I also think there are parts later that have too much detail. But I do think a bit of background is useful, if perhaps integrated differently into the article. As I say, however, this is a work in progress. Your comments are very helpful: the more specific and concrete, the better, as students continue to revise the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, as of the current revision (945253803), The background section looks much better than it did 24 hours ago. Thank you all for the hard work on the adjustments! I still think that to better follow the Biography format (WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:MOSBIO and WP:BIODD); it could be reduced further and better incorporated into the Early Life section. Something like: "Gregorio Cortez was born during a dynamic time in which... [then get into a brief recap of the regional geopolitical issues during the years of his birth and early life.]" In particular, the first paragraph going over Texas-Mexico history back into the 1820s is still a bit WP:Undue and also Essay-like (WP:NOTESSAY), a common issue noted in WP:STUDENTS: "Wikipedia has its own core content policies, style, and editing structure. The traditional writing assignment of the essay (with its necessary point of view) is not suited for publication here because our encyclopedic style requires a neutral point of view."

Many thanks for these helpful comments. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that per a request from jbmurray I'll be posting some review comments in this section. I'll review the article with an eye to what a GA reviewer would say, and if I go beyond what is needed for GA I'll try to make that clear in the comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start with the body, and do the lead last. This will be in fragments as I am likely to be interrupted this evening. The requirement for prose quality at GA is "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct", which means that if I think the way you've written something could be improved, I won't say so unless there's something definitely wrong or I think I reader could misunderstand it.

• Section title "Background of the Region": a minor point: Wikipedia uses sentence case for section headings so this should be "Background of the region". You might consider just making it "Background".
• The second paragraph of that section is a bit repetitive and I'm not clear exactly what points it's making. Does the first sentence, about land loss and political access, refer only to Tejanos? (And is Tejano a modern term, by the way, or was it current then?) I think it would help to organize this paragraph a bit more linearly. Currently it reads as though your audience is someone who already knows many of the facts, and you're referring to the facts. For example, you say Despite the promise of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; Jon will know what the promise is that you refer to, but I don't, unless I click through to the link, which I shouldn't have to do to understand your point. Make it more directly factual: "The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo promised American citizenship to residents who wanted to stay in Texas, but Tejanos in the lower Rio Grande Valley were relegated to second-class status". I think perhaps some simple reordering of sentences would help -- it sounds like the information to be conveyed here is that the annexation's consequences were generally negative for Tejanos; they faced racism and were treated as second-class citizens: here are some examples of problems they faced, and here are some of the causes. And how deeply do we need to go into causes? Does a reader who wants to learn about Gregorio Cortez care that manifest destiny is behind racism in the region?
• I'd cut the name of Paredes' book -- it's in the citation. What the reader needs to know is just that Paredes is a scholar of the subject, so I would say that.
• Américo Paredes pointed out the role of the Texas Rangers division...: verbs like "point out" and "note" imply to the reader that Wikipedia agrees with the sentiment expressed; we should rarely support anything in Wikipedia's voice, so I would use a verb like "argued that" or use "According to Paredes", as you do in the next sentence.
• Is the third paragraph neutral enough? You cite Utley to say that there was no systematic evidence of persecution, he still calls the Rangers ruthless and brutal. Are there no scholarly positions more favourable to the Rangers?
• However, they embodied Anglo-American values: what point is this making?
• Gregorio Cortez Lira, cowboy, and Mexican-American folk hero was born in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico...: no need for the descriptives -- the reader has some of this from the lead and we can just say "Gregorio Cortez Lira was born in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico...". I'd give his birthdate at this point.
• You need a citation for the sentences about his birth and wives.
• A misunderstanding of semantics, and the violence which ensues, lies at the core of the true story of Gregorio Cortez and constitutes the principal incident: I think you could cut this -- I wouldn't fail GA for this, but it strays from a simple account of the facts. I think "true story" is unnecessary, and "core" and "principal incident" are repetitive.
• Isn't that paragraph told partly backwards? First we get a summary sentence, then we're told what the killings were about, then we find out what the trade was about. Then it starts to move forward in time with Morris's visit. I think the reader would find it easier to follow if you simply gave the facts in chronological order. And do we need to add "According to Paredes"? We should give names inline when there are controversies or when it's an opinion, but if Paredes' research is uncontroversial we can let the reader check the citation if they want the details.
• who was allegedly an expert on the Mexican language: surely just "who could speak Spanish"?
• Missing a couple of citations at the eend of paragraphs in this section.
• Reading through the rest of the "Incident" section, I see more repetition and out-of-sequence narration -- the second paragraph, for example, starts by saying what had happened before the visit to Cortez. I'd put all of this in plain chronological order.
• Whose narration is it that we're reading? Choate's? Cortez's own story? It's told as if it were true but for a story like this the reader should be very clear on whose authority it rests.
• In one or two places the language veers to the dramatic: "For, in truth,..."; "it was in this way"; "stood at the door, where his brother had stood". I'd remove this and leave the drama to the facts.

-- I'll stop there for now; let me know if anything is unclear. Feel free to post responses or disagreements in between the bullets above if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gregorio Cortez/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 11:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add notes as I go through the article; it might take me a couple of days to finish. Note that the tag at the top indicating that the article is being expanded will have to be gone before I can pass the article.

• The Jastrzembski references is listed as 1999 in the citations, but 2000 in the sources list -- which is correct?
• In the "See also" section, you can cut anything that's already linked from the body of the article. You don't currently link the Texas Rangers, but it would be good to do so and then cut that from "See also". I'd also cut Mexican-American.
• a cycle of revenge involving Bandit Gang, Texas Rangers and innocent Mexican-Americans collaterals victims: why is "Bandit Gang" capitalized? Is it a reference to something in one of the sources cited? Given that "bandit gangs" are something of a cliche in Texas/Mexican history, do we need to clarify whether this was a perception or a reality or somewhere in between?
• historian Robert M. Utley exposes the complex nature of the relationship: I'd use a more neutral verb than "exposes", which implies Wikipedia agrees with Utley's analysis. Perhaps "argues that the relationship between... was complex", or "discusses the complexities of the relationship"?
• A misunderstanding of semantics, and the violence which ensues, lies at the core of the true story of Gregorio Cortez and constitutes the principal incident. Why do we need this sentence?
• There's a citation needed tag on the next sentence which needs to be addressed. And do we even need this sentence? The following sentences give us the names, and explain that it was related to a horse trade, so does this really add anything other than that the source is court records? If that's important it could be mentioned much more concisely.
• allegedly an expert on the Mexican language: why not just "could allegedly speak Spanish"? Not necessary for GA, I'm just curious as to why this is phrased this way. Do the sources refer to the language as Spanish or Mexican?
• The sheriff was the first to draw a pistol despite the suspicion on his part the both Cortezes were probably unarmed. Two things: "the both" looks like a typo of some kind, and if the sheriff is killed shortly after this, how do we know he suspected the Cortezes were unarmed?
• The Sheriff shot Romaldo as he stood there with his head thrown back. The Sheriff shot him in the face, right in the open mouth, and Romaldo fell away from the door, at the Major Sheriff's feet. And then Gregorio Cortez stood at the door, where his brother had stood, with his pistol in his hand. The Major Sheriff fell dead at the feet of Gregorio Cortez, and it was in this way that Gregorio Cortez killed the first sheriff of many that he was to kill. Too dramatic; needs to be toned down. Why is it encyclopedic to say how Romaldo was holding his head? And the language in this paragraph reads more like a fictionalization than a simple narration of events.
• Why is the date of the killing given in the next section? Seems like it would make more sense to mention it right at the start of the "Incident" section, where it would help set the scene.
• After escaping: we haven't said he escaped yet; did he have to run from Boone Choate, or was Choate not armed?
• In the Battle of Belmont section, the paragraph starting "According to the Texas Court..." seems to be recounting the historical version, but then the last paragraph gives a few different details. Wouldn't it make more sense to combine these two paragraphs so the reader reads the account of the battle once? If there are significant differences between Paredes' version and what can be gleaned from court records, then say so, but I don't see any as it stands so it would seem kinder to the reader to combine the two.
• Also, "fell dead before to run into the brush" makes no sense; an editing error of some kind?
• The "Flight" section partly precedes the "Battle of Belmont" section which makes it very confusing for the reader. Could we just make this chronological? "Incident" could include the flight to the Robledo ranch, and then "Flight" could continue with events after the Battle of Belmont.
• It's also apparent at this point that Romaldo is still alive, but he's referred to above as having been killed. We should include a reference to his death somewhere in the article.
• he decided to head north instead to confuse his persecutors: "persecutors" is not the right word. They weren't persecuting him; they were searching for him.
• He traveled 55 miles from Kenedy to Belmont in hopes of hiding at the house of his friend, Martín Robledo. At the Robledo residence, a couple of days past, authorities had found Cortez and thus begun the Battle of Belmont (see above). This doesn't seem to make sense -- he gets there, but the authorities had already found him? And this is uncited too; it needs a citation, whether you keep it here or move it up as suggested above.
• the Corpus Christi-to-Laredo railroad made it evident that he was moving toward Laredo: I don't follow this -- how does the railroad make this evident? Do you mean it became apparent that he was following the course of the railroad? If so, say that.
• Again it looks as if things might be out of sequence in this paragraph -- the mare drops dead, but then jumps over wire fences. And does he leave the mare because it "could not continue" or because it "dropped dead"?
• but would be betrayed and captured shortly: why do we need this?
• This was one of the largest manhunts in history: looking at the source you're using for this, I suspect this needs qualification -- largest in Texas? In the US?
• Gregorio becomes a fugitive, faithful to that part of his sung legend which celebrates him as a "good shot and superb rider, a man of nerve, ingenuity, and endurance." We already know he's a fugitive, and the rest of this is out of place here -- it belongs in the section at the end where you discuss his legend.
• The "Capture" section seems to cover the Battle of Belmont again, but now it talks about the Thulemeyer ranch. I thought this was the Robledo ranch? And this account doesn't seem to match the one above; Glover dies in both accounts, but now there's a sheriff of Atascosa County as well, who is not mentioned in the earlier account.
• Is there no information about his actual capture except the date? Where was he captured, and who by, and how?

-- That's everything up to the Trials section; I'll post comments on the second half of the article probably tonight. Generally the sources look solid and the basic material is here; there's a little reorganization needed, and some clarifications, but this is not far off GA from what I've read so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More, starting with the Trials section:

• The article by José Antonio López for the San Antonio Express-News isn't a very good source; he's an author but has no academic credentials. I don't think it's good enough to support the claim that many Anglos admired Cortez, and the other use, in the "Flight" section, provides a lot of detail that would be best sourced somewhere else.
• Do we know how much money was raised by the fund?
• local "rancheros" (ranchers): is the implication that those who donated were Mexican-American? Or doesn't the source make it clear? Either way I think "rancheros (ranchers)" is unnecessary; either "rancheros" is obvious, in which case it doesn't need glossing, or it's not, in which case we shouldn't use it unless there's a clear reason to.
• The battle of the courts began on July 24, 1901: again, too dramatic. Just say the court case began on that date.
• The comment about lawmen waiting for Cortez to be sentenced to death is certainly plausible, but unless Jastrzembski (the source here) has unimpeachable evidence I'd say this needs to be attributed to Jastrzembski inline, to avoid the article appearing to be non-neutral.
• Again the sequencing seems a little off. We give the opening date, then describe some of those attending the case, then go back to say what Cortez is being tried for. Wouldn't that more logically be first?
• Though they originally claimed the murder to have been done by a Mrs. Robledo during the fight, Robledo was coaxed into testifying that she had seen Cortez shoot and kill both Schnabel and Sheriff of Gonzales County, Robert M. Glover: I don't really follow this. Who is "they"; the prosecution? That would make no sense. And who did the coaxing? The prosecution? And "coax" is not a neutral way to describe this, it implies that she lied. And why would anyone have to coax an accused woman to claim someone else did it? As a side note, we already know who Glover is from the earlier part of the article, so we can make this just "kill both Schnabel and Glover".
• What story did Sanders tell? That he was pressured to change his vote? That's not clear from the way it's worded now.
• I'd like to be convinced that this source is reliable for the purposes you're using it for; it seems a bit melodramatic for a law library, and in any case as far as I can see it actually doesn't support some of what you're using it for. For example, it's used to cite The trial swayed all jurors, besides an A.L Sanders who believed Cortez to be innocent. However, as a family member of Sanders's soon developed a serious illness and the juror needed to return home, Sanders succumbed to the jury's pressure, ultimately sentencing Cortez to 50 years in prison for second-degree murder but it doesn't even mention Sanders. It's used to cite Many local officers were enraged about the verdict as they wanted to see Cortez face the death penalty. A few months later, as Cortez was in a Gonzales jail, over 300 men arranged a lynching of the recently sentenced prisoner but the bit about local officers isn't mentioned, and all it says about the lynching is that a mob tried when he was in the Gonzales jail, not what the date was or how many men there were; and it says they failed, which your text doesn't make clear. It doesn't say tensions grew after the reversal in 1902.
• There are several more unsourced sentences; at the end of the "Gonzales Trial" section, and at the end of "Further Legal Battles".
• A minor style note: you don't need "The" in section titles, generally, and they should be in sentence case, not title case, so "Gonzales trial", not "The Gonzales trial", and "Further legal battles", not "Further Legal Battles".
• In the "Further Legal Battles" section, why do we hear about the 1901 Karnes City trial only after talking about 1902 events?
• More non-neutral language: "rushed decision"; the "criminalization" of Cortez; "understood he acted in self-defense".
• I'm surprised by so many trials -- what was the legal basis for trying him so many times? I assume it's because until Corpus Christi he was never found innocent; it was just hung juries and reversed decisions? It would help to make that clear.
• as the Columbus trial sentenced Cortez for Glover's murder assuming he had already killed Morris: I'm not sure what this means.
• his alleged murder of Sheriff Robert M. Glover, who was killed during the pursuit: I thought he was killed during the initial confrontation?
• The last two sentences of the "Prison and pardon" section say the same thing; I'd combine them. What were the conditions on the pardon?
• There are a couple more unsourced sentences in the "In popular culture" section, at the end of some paragraphs.
• The particularity of the work is that it constitutes a hybrid of genres: I'm not sure what is meant here, but I think it could just be dropped, or at least cut to "The book is a hybrid of genres".
• Are there more details from Paredes that could be used to expand the earlier part of the article about Cortez's life? At the moment we just have a handful of details.

-- That's it for a first pass. I've placed the nomination on hold to give you time to make the fixes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I see y'all are working on the article; let me know when you want me to take another look. If you want, you can post a note under each point above when you think it's dealt with, so I can follow along and strike out the issues as you go; or you can wait till you think everything is done and let me know then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Hi Mike Christie. We believe we have made all the necessary edits for the GA nomination. Thank you for all your hard work and helping us understand how to improve this article. We appreciate it. Take care. Chr66 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass

I've struck out everything above that was obviously fixed, but since it's changed so much, rather than go through the above points line-by-line I'm just going to read it again and make notes below, so you can ignore the unstruck points above. It's definitely much improved. Incidentally, if I ask a question like "What does Bandit Gang" refer to?", you don't have to just edit the article to fix what you feel the problem is, you can also reply here to explain what the intention was. If you're in any doubt about what I'm driving at that might be the most productive thing to do. Usually I'll reply within 24 hours.

• What does "Bandit Gang" refer to?
• To move beyond this dichotomy, historian Robert M. Utley exposes the complex nature of the relationship between the Mexican Americans and the Texas Rangers. The problem with this phrasing is it makes it sounds like we (that is, Wikipedia editors) agree with Utley. We can't do that because this is Utley's opinion -- it's not a clear statement of fact. How about: "Historian Robert Utley considers the relationship between Mexican Americans and the Texas Rangers to be more complex than this dichotomy suggests; while some rangers may have been..."
• Put the events of "Early life" in chronological order -- I can't tell if Leonor Diaz is his third wife, or his first, since that paragraph jumps back to 1887.
• Explain who Villareal is when he is first mentioned.
• In the "Incident" section, put things in chronological order -- the order is confusing right now. The sequence, if I have it correctly is: Villareal is accused of horse theft and reveals that he had traded a horse to Cortez; Morris and Choate visit Cortez on June 14, 1901, Cortez says no because of the language issue, Morris decides to arrest him, gun battle follows, Morris shoots Romaldo, Cortez shoots Morris. The current sequence is hard to understand.
• There is an uncited sentence at the end of the "Escape to the Robledo ranch" section
• You have both "Roblero" and "Robledo"; which is correct?
• The actual story, according to the scholar Américo Paredes, was less heroic. We can't imply that Paredes is right and the others are wrong. I suggest "According to Paredes, the story was less heroic." We don't need to introduce Paredes again -- we mentioned him in the background section.
• The first sentence of "Capture" repeats some of the information in the last sentence of "Flight".
• Why does the "Capture" section repeat the Robledo ranch story?
• Though the defense was optimistic about their appeal being upheld, Cortez's lawyers had built a case saying that Cortez had not fired shots anywhere near Glover in the Battle of Belmont which many witnesses denied. I don't understand this sentence -- why do you say the lawyers built a case, though they were optimistic? And what was it that the witnesses denied -- that he had fired shots, or that he had not fired shots?
• There is an uncited sentence at the end of the section "El Corrido de Gregorio Cortez", and another at the end of the first paragraph of the section "With His Pistol in His Hand".
• the film's authenticity is a profound departure from this genre: this is opinion, so either cut "profound", or attribute this inline to the source. Since the next two sentences make the same point with attributed opinions, I would just cut "profound".
• the movie has been considered the most authentic Westerns in the history of American cinema: presumably should be "one of the most authentic Westerns", since it's ungrammatical as it stands. Or does the source support "the most authentic Western"?
• the choice made by Villasenor: who is Villasenor? Sounds like he was the scriptwriter, or one of them, but if so, say so.
• I don't think the article by Lopez in the San Antonio Express-News is a reliable source for what you're using it for; I think you need to replace it with something more reliable, or cut that material.

That's everything -- the article is much improved and is now pretty close to GA status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, do you know if your students plan to make another pass at this? Or is the semester over? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the semester will be over now, so I'm going to fail this; I'll start another review if any of the students want to continue working on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]