Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Convention of 1833/archive2

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 SandyGeorgia 02:08, 17 June 2010 [1].

Convention of 1833[edit]

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly short (3000 word!) article about another period of Texan political bumbling. When told that one political convention was illegal and its results would be thrown out, Texans promptly called another one. The man responsible for delivering the results was jailed for treason. Nevertheless, Mexico gave Texas trial by jury, and lots of other cool stuff. This was archived last time with a lack of reviews, and I've since given it another copyedit. Karanacs (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No dab links or dead external links. In the lead, the piece about Austin's letter to Texas does not seem a fair representation of the body: the letter was not intercepted by the Mexican government, but by someone from the local government, apparently, and he did not encourage the Texans to "revolt", but to form their own state, and actually tried to quell radicals. Also, you need to be consistent in abbreviating (Jan) or not abbreviating (January) months. Otherwise good; the prose reads well (though I made a few tweaks), and the article appears comprehensive to me at least. Ucucha 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is still unclear; the lead now suggests, although it doesn't say, that the letter was intercepted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure how else to word this. I don't want to get into details about the delivery of the letter in the lead and I'm at a loss as to how to be more clear and concise at the same time. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The licensing for File:SHouston 2.jpg is rather confused, but shouldn't it be PD instead of CC-BY-SA?~~ Ucucha 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I've redone the bit about the letter and fixed the abbreviation issues. I'm not sure about the image licensing - it's a derivative of a PD image. Are those PD too? I'll ask User:Jappalang. Karanacs (talk)

Thanks for the fixes. I see now. I don't think you can claim copyright on removing scratches, but we'd better wait for what Jappalang has to say. The image description needs to be cleaned up anyway; it doesn't have the original author, for example. Ucucha 19:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the US side tends to ignore faithful restorations as they tend to lack "creative" element of work; some other parts of the world (such as the UK), however, awards copyright for "sweat of brow" (hard work put into the job) regardless of creativity. Funnily, there are artists/entities in the US who claim copyright for restoring Civil War illustrations/photos and such; some call their acts "copyfrauds". I think this is a more touchy situation here; editors in a volunteer project would have pride in their work, especially if they spend hours on something. Perhaps a civil discussion should be first taken up with Globalearth or started on say commons:Commons:Village pump with a request for Globalearth to join in? Jappalang (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the history of the image more closely, and it looks like the restoration was uploaded by User:Oldag07, who is on wikibreak until August 16. Globalearth (who hasn't edited since May 2009), moved it from en.wp to commons. I've left a message at the commons village pump to get clarity [2]. Regardless, the image should be fine to use - it's either PD as a derivative or it's been released as CCA-share alike 3.0. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I released the image into the public domain. Shouldn't be a problem anymore. Oldag07 (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: All sources look OK, no issues outstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well-written and interesting article. Just a few small points:

"the United States state" - I know that it's conventional to spell out abbreviations on first appearance, but that phrasing is quite awkward
You use "Texians" throughout the article but not in the lead - was that intentional?
"As the number of Americans living in Texas blossomed..." - wording?
"The lack of Tejano representation fostered a perception that only newcomers to Texas were dissatisfied" - seems like an odd way to start a section - lack of representation in the 1832 convention, in the complaints, where?
"known hothead" - source?
"One of the resolutions would have been more suited for passage by a state legislature than a group of concerned citizens" - I agree, but this reads like personal opinion and is unsourced
"Preparations" and "Preparations for delivery" - similar headings, consider changing one? Not a big issue
"state Attorney General" - "State Attorney General" or "the state's Attorney General"?
Morton - 1947 or 1943?
There are a number of resources that are only in Sources, not in footnotes. Perhaps use these to create a Further reading section?
Are Eugene C. and Eugene Campbell Barker the same person? What about Joe E. and J.E. Ericson?
Location for Lamar & Barton? Access date for the first Ericson? Page numbers for Morton? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, and my sincere apologies for the delayed response; real-life intervened.

I changed "United States state" to "American state" and added "The previous convention's" to "lack of Tejano repreentation..."

I did deliberately steer away from using Texian or Tejano in the lead because that takes a bit of explanation that I felt was overkill for the overview.

"known hothead" is sourced to Davis. I added an additional citation to the next page of Davis, where he specifically uses the term "hothead" in a discussion of several delegates, including Wharton. The point on state legislature is a paraphrase from Davis (p 98), which is cited at the end of the next sentence (I follow the standard where a citation covers all the information from the last cite to this one).

state attorney general is a valid term, and I've often seen it with the s uncapitalized and the a and g capitalized.

I fixed the year for Morton (thank you for catching that; I mixed it up with the volume number). I also removed the two sources that are no longer used in the article.

The Barkers are the same, as are the Ericsons. They are listed in differing ways depending on the source, and I retained the source's original formatting.

Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you aware that several North American constitutions forbade primogeniture and entailment? Do you have a source that this was derived from Mexican or Spanish law? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, my apologies on the delayed response. According to [http://www.tshaonline.org/shqonline/apager.php?vol=062&pag=474[ (Ericson, J.E. (April 1959), "Origins of the Texas Bill of Rights", Southwestern Historical Quarterly (Texas State Historical Association) 62 (4): 457–466) "A prohibition against monopolies and perpetuities was included in at least two state constitutions by 1835 and was included in both Texas constitutions of the period. The Texas provision, however, included also prohibitions against the English common law practices of primogeniture and entailment, not to be found in American constitutions of that time. Spanish law had abolished entailments by 1821, and Mexican law had perpetuated the prohibition.. Karanacs (talk)

~~Leaning to~~ Support - a well written and interesting article. Thanks for your thoughtful responses, which have addressed all the points I raised.~~A few fairly minor points:~~

"Nevertheless, Stephen F. Austin journeyed to Mexico City to present the petitions to the government. Frustrated with the lack of progress, he wrote a letter encouraging Texans to form their own state government." - it's not clear (unless you know) that he didn't write the letter immediately. Perhaps "Frustrated with a continuing lack of progress"?

"The federal and state legislatures later passed a series of measures to placate the colonists, including the introduction of trial by jury." (also more on this later) - I think the lead needs to bring out the fact that they did this while he was imprisoned, rather than at some unspecified (and possibly much later) time.

Although Background is, on careful reading, exclusively concerned with the 1832 convention, I think a closing sentence emphasizing that fact would help our focus as we move to the next section, which addresses the 1833 one. So, rather than simply ending Background with "The political chief could then escalate the concerns to the appropriate governmental authority", I suggest adding a concluding "Hence the 1832 resolutions never took effect" (suitably worded!).

"As the number of Americans living in Texas blossomed," - can a number blossom? Very picturesque! But it seems to carry more baggage than "increased" or similar. We are not given reason to suppose that all parties saw the increase as a beautiful, maturing development, so a neutral term would be preferable.

"A 27-article bill of rights,[22] containing an "impressive list" of protected rights,[20] was included. " - I was unable to infer who found (or claimed) it to be impressive, and I think it should be stated ("what x called 'an impressive list'" etc.).

"Seguin declined to accompany Austin. Dr. Miller also withdrew.[32] Texas was in the throes of a cholera epidemic, and Miller felt it his duty to stay and tend the sick." - "Dr. Miller" seems incongruous here. I think you intend this to connect with tending the sick; however, we don't know from "Dr" that he's a medical doctor. Perhaps "Miller also withdrew. Texas was in the throes ... and Miller, a physician, felt it his duty to stay and tend the sick"?

There are confusing mixed messages about the nature of Austin's letter. In the lead, we learn first that "Frustrated with the lack of progress, he wrote a letter encouraging Texans to form their own state government", which leaves us with the impression that he set out to incite revolutionary action. Then, in Reception, we're told that the letter was rather "an attempt to quell some of the more radical groups in Texas". Yet in the very next sentence we find that "In an especially inflammatory gesture, Austin signed his letter "dios y Tejas" ("God and Texas") rather than the traditional Mexican closing "dios y libertad" ("God and liberty").

I found the timing of events in the last two paragraphs confusing. The penultimate ends with "Austin was arrested in December on suspicion of treason.[42] He was imprisoned through all of 1834 and remained in Mexico City on bond until July 1835." The final paragraph then starts, "The government addressed several of the convention's proposals. Before Austin's arrest, the immigration ban was repealed ..." (i.e., nearly two years previously). I think it might be clearer if a couple of sentences were shifted, so that the final paragraph begins, "Austin was arrested in December on suspicion of treason.[42] He was imprisoned through all of 1834 and remained in Mexico City on bond until July 1835. However, during this time the government addressed ..." or suchlike.

I look forward to supporting once these points are addressed. PL290 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pl290, for taking a look! I've fixed all of the issues you raised. The letter is a bit more complicated. I've tried to reword a bit more for clarity, but I think I've gone about as far as I can. Basically, the federal government would have been unhappy either way if Texas formed its own state without federal approval, but the feds would have been much more likely to take harsh measures if the action took place as a result of an illegal political convention instead of as the decision of the town councils. None of the sources explicitly state this, but it's always implied in the chronology (where the sources have already discussed why political conventions were looked on unfavorably) and the use of terms like drastic/radical/etc for those proposing new conventions/etc. As for the "Dios y tejas", well, several of the sources set this up for readers to draw the conclusion that the letter was really Austin's attempt to be on the "winning" side - if it looked like public support was against his stated position of "wait for the government to do something", then he wanted Musquiz to release the letter so that Austin could still be one of the driving forces behind the political development of the area; otherwise, I think Musquiz was supposed to keep it secret. However, that's my interpretation - the sources don't actually "connect the dots". Historians are often hesitant to be too direct on this period in Austin's life (either because no one is sure what was meant or they are afraid they'll get lynched if their view is unpopular. Even my four-year-old knows who Stephen F. Austin is and why people here revere him, and that wasn't my doing! Sometimes living here is like being in a cult.). Anyway, let me know if this is any better; if not, I'll keep working. Karanacs (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for addressing those points. A new point, and an old one revisited:
I think it would be good if the lead could mention that the "measures to placate the colonists" were significant: so much so, in fact, that In a letter to a friend, Austin wrote "Every evil complained of has been remedied. This fully compensates me for all I have suffered." I'm not necessarily advocating including the quote in the lead, though perhaps it would be a good addition; just that Austin's reaction to the measures be presented there one way or another.

I understand your point about Austin's letter. I think there is still a slight problem with one phrase. Since, taking our cue from the historians, we must leave our readers to "join the dots", I think we should avoid implying Austin deliberately made an inflammatory gesture (which is how it currently reads, to me at least, and which conflicts with what we state to be his intention). I would therefore suggest avoiding calling it an inflammatory gesture, and instead moving the sentence to point a couple of sentences on when the letter was "read by an unsympathetic ayuntamiento member", noting there the possibly inflammatory effect the non-traditional signature may have had on that reader. PL290 (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been toying with the idea of putting the quote in the lead, and now I've added the first half to be the new last sentence. I've also amended the sentence on the letter's closing to read "In what could be intepreted as an inflammatory gesture,..." I didn't move the sentence - I didn't want to speculate on what exactly caused the ayuntamiento member to forward this on. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have not checked images (dealt with above); meets all other criteria. Kablammo (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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