Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of San Patricio/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2015 [1].

Battle of San Patricio

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the smaller battles of the Texas Revolution and a terrific illustration of Texan incompetence. One side literally got caught sleeping. The commander escaped due to a series of crazy coincidences. It's a scene worthy of a novelist's imagination. Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

"Goliad Campaign": Readers who don't know what that is won't have a clear idea of what the first sentence is saying. I think of it as Mexico's main or first offensive in the war ... would that be inaccurate?
"His campaign was to neutralize the Texian soldiers gathered along the coast.": In the sense of "his campaign would later neutralize ...", or "the goal of his campaign was ..."?
Not an issue for me, but there's at least one hidden comment.
"While Santa Anna personally led the bulk of his troops inland to San Antonio de Béxar, he ordered General José de Urrea": To resolve the arguably ambiguous "while", I'd either go with "was personally leading" or drop the "while" and change "he" to "and".
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copyediting to address your concerns. [2] I also removed one of the hidden comments. The other is commenting out an image. I am still working on verifying the licensing, so the image is hidden unless that happens. I can remove that completely if it is an issue to have it hidden. Thanks for taking a look at the article! Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very nice. I think both the title of the article and the way it's presented in the infobox suggest that "Battle of San Patricio" is a proper noun, so I went with "Battle". I don't mind if you revert, but if so, I'd want to resolve the tension with the infobox. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my following comments:
English-speaking settlers in the Mexican border region of [[Mexican Texas|Texas]]: I wonder if there's a better way to link that so readers don't assume it's linking to Texas. Maybe "border region of Mexican Texas"?
In the early nineteenth century, captured pirates were executed immediately.: in general, or in Mexico?
Why is File:Frank W Johnson.JPG commented out? And are there really no other images you could include besides the map?
The fighting ended within fifteen minutes.: short one-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon at FAC.
- Personally, I'd prefer this stays like it is, I think it was a good judgment call. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this to follow your suggestion
Execution of pirates was a general thing, not just in Mexico.
- It'd be nice to clarify this, but I can't think of a wording that would do it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been having difficulty verifying the PD status of the Frank W. Johnson image, so I commented it out for now. I know it was taken before 1884 and given to an artist before 1908, and that it has resided in the Texas archives since 1927, but I don't know who took the picture and haven't been able to track down if it has been published before. I found one picture purporting to be of General Urrea, but I can't verify it either.
- Well, that's disappointing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your ce help! Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tolerating my hairsplitting. I'm giving this article my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support: Loving the story, but I have to admit I've very confused about the political situation being described...

"Leading federalists in Mexico"

Ok, so it seems the Texians were, essentially, being swept up in a larger movement covering much of Mexico? But then...

"Most importantly, it would move the war zone outside of Texas"

This seems to imply the opposite.

"The Texas provisional government"

Sooo... has Texas succeeded? Is Texas mostly "american" by this point? I think a little more background is warranted here.

"Mexican troops had been told that the house where Johnson was quartered was one of their targets, yet a lamp burned in the window "

What is this "yet"? It seems a leap to suggest that the Mexican troops would have been confused by a lamp, "yet" it seems to be what this is trying to imply.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look! You brought up some great points. I fleshed out the background section a little more. Do you think that helps enough?

The "yet" does mean they were confused. It said earlier in the section that loyalists were instructed to leave a lamp burning. So now they have intelligence that says the rebel leader is in THIS house, BUT the house has a lamp, implying federalists were living there. Do I need to reword it somehow?

Karanacs (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great improvement IMHO. The issue with the lamp... I see I missed the part about the lamp burning. Perhaps simply a re-mention... "seeing the lamp burning, and having been told the loyalists would have one,..." Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see why I missed it... is it there? I can't find "lamp" or "light" anywhere earlier in the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

centralists were asked to declare their loyalties by leaving lanterns burning in their windows. I used "lamp" as a synonym later. Karanacs (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it... so then I reiterate the "reminder" idea...

"Mexican troops had been told that the house where Johnson was quartered was one of their targets, yet a lamp burned in the window, the signal that this was the home of loyalist."

It doesn't extend the sentence too much, but I do think it makes it easier to read. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I added your suggestion. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

The text is adequately cited and everything is properly formatted. I had some concerns about "Republic of Texas Press", but it seems to be an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield, a mainstream publisher. Everything else checks out fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Coemgenus. Would you mind doing a more comprehensive/general review as well? I just wouldn't mind one extra pair of eyes before we look at promotion, and the nom hasn't exactly been open forever at this stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I'll take a look at it today. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

In "Background", you mention "Dr. James Grant". Under WP:CREDENTIALS, I think this usage is discouraged.
"The provisional governor, Henry Smith, was opposed to the..." I find "opposed" is almost always a better substitute for "was opposed to", unless you think it changes the sentence's meaning.
"...into territory officially part of the state of Tamaulipas..." This construction is confusing to someone not familiar with Texas history. I'm assuming it's because the territory in question was called a part of Tamaulipas by the Mexican government, but claimed by Texas? Or have I got that wrong?
"...Mexican dragoons began preparing..." Probably better as "...Mexican dragoons prepared..."
"The fighting ended within fifteen minutes." This might be my own pet peeve, but one-sentence paragraphs always look bad to me. Here, it kind of works, but I'm on the fence. Keep it separate from the paragraph above or not, your call. I just want to raise the issue for you.

Other than these minor issues, the article looks great. Looking forward to supporting. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Karanacs status on addressing Coemgenus' comments? --Laser brain (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU for the ping. I'm so sorry, Coemgenus, I saw your source review and apparently it didn't register when I saw that watchlist that you had added more. I will look at these today. Karanacs (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the first two.
The third was my poor attempt to signal that the boundaries in 1836 were different than they are in 2015. I've tried again, "into territory belonging to the state of Tamaulipas". I didn't want to just say "the state of..." because this was an extremely sparsely populated area; the state's political center was further south.
Changed the fourth bullet.
I think this is a personal preference issue. I think it fits this way.

Thank you for your help in tweaking the prose. Karanacs (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that all looks good to me, and they were minor points anyway. I'm glad to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:42, 2 June 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. Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 5 June 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.