Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Texas Revolution/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Texas Revolution edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Maile and I are on a push to get this article to FA status by the end of March.

I tried very hard to be NPOV and explore the perspectives of both Mexico and the rebels, so please let me know where I didn't strike the proper balance. I also tried hard to keep out my natural inclination to make fun of both sides (I consider this war to be something of a farce on all sides), and I'm not sure how successful I was at that.

The article is currently just over 10,000 words, and that is after I already cut about 15% of the original text. Please help us figure out what, if anything, needs to be removed from the article or further summarized...or if we left anything out, despite the length. Copyediting is, as always, much appreciated.

Thanks, Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "the increasingly large population of American settlers in Texas, when hostilities erupted, Texians": Is Texian meant as another way of referring to this group of settlers? If so, I'll reword to make that clearer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking a look, Dan. Texian refers to the non-Mexican-born population (mostly people from the US, but there were also settlers from Ireland and Germany). Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but it's not a word most readers will know (exactly, even if they have a general sense), so work in whatever definition you like ... which probably means the sentence will have to be split. - Dank (push to talk) 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "toward, towards": More consistency is needed than you have. Generally, it's best to go with one or the other, but there are arguments that usage allows both. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fight against the Constitution of 1824": not sure whether this is aiming at "no longer dispute the Constitution of 1824" or "no longer fight the supporters of ...".
  • "78% had arrived from the United States after October 2, 1835": I don't get the sense that this was a time of fastidious record-keeping; do we know the figure this exactly?
  • Done. I like the pacing. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dan! Both the lead and the background section now mention that Texians were English-speaking settlers. I standardized on "towards" with the exception of a direct quote. I clarified "fight against the supporters of the Constitution of 1824". On the army composition, I moved the note to the end of the paragraph and expanded it a bit. It reads: "These numbers are gathered from a combination of surviving muster rolls and veteran applications for land grants. It is likely that the statistics on the Texian army size in both 1835 and 1836 underestimate the number of Tejanos who served in the army. American volunteers who returned to the US without claiming land are also undercounted." Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'll add comments here as I go through the article. I'll copyedit as I go; feel free to revert at will.

Lead:

  • You say in the second sentence that the settlers are American, but I think you might add that adjective to "colonists" in the first sentence -- it's a key point and the first sentence should capture it if possible.
    • Done (by Dan?) Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like this hasn't been done. What I'm suggesting is changing this: "The Texas Revolution (October 2, 1835 – April 21, 1836) began when colonists in the Mexican province of Texas rebelled against the increasingly centralist Mexican government. Despite a decade of political and cultural clashes between the Mexican government and the increasingly large population of American settlers in Texas" to this: "The Texas Revolution (October 2, 1835 – April 21, 1836) began when American colonists in the Mexican province of Texas rebelled against the increasingly centralist Mexican government. Despite a decade of political and cultural clashes between the Mexican government and the increasingly large population of settlers in Texas". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, I get it now. I've changed the first sentence to "colonists (primarily from the United States)". Not all of the colonists were from the US, but most were American. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dank that "Texians" should be defined inline on first use. I lived in Texas for nearly twenty years, and my wife and all my in-laws are Texan, and I had never heard the word before seeing it on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use it, but we shouldn't require a reader to follow a link to understand a critical word.
  • The convention in 1836 was in March, but from the narrative in the lead the reader assumes it's no later than February since it appears that it is part of what offended Santa Anna, and led to his army entering Texas in February. I think the sequence as given in the lead is fine but the reader should be clearer we're stepping back a month or two.

Background:

  • The map has the main text rather clumsily overlaying the U.S.-Mexico boundary. This is an SVG, so it's fixable by anyone with an svg editor such as Inkscape. I might be able to get to it if nobody else volunteers.
    • I don't have an SVG editor, unfortunately. Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I can probably get to this; I'll hold off for now; see next comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I've now fixed this problem; you may have to refresh the page to see the new version, but the text at top right now does not overlap with the boundary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map is wrong in another respect; what it describes as the current frontiers are definitely wrong -- the panhandle looks nothing like that. It would be easier to change the text to describe the frontiers as drawn that to change the frontiers, though both are doable.
    • It would be interesting to see a map of Coahuila y Tejas that is totally accurate. The one in the article was made in Mexico and represents Mexico's administrative divisions. Not sure what you mean about the panhandle not looking like that, since the Panhandle didn't come into being until the Compromise of 1850. But I believe the map in the article, if you just go by colonization grants to Anglos, is not that far off from Commons:File:Map of Coahuila and Texas in 1833.jpg that is directly from the Map Collection of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. Here are some other maps: Commons:Category:Territorial growth maps of the United States.— Maile (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      What I meant was that the "current frontiers" note in that map's legend is wrong; the panhandle today looks nothing like the map, so the map doesn't show the current frontiers. For our purposes we don't need it to, so just fixing the legend is OK. However, there used to be editors that could create maps to order and would do so on request (with sufficient warning). I think we should decide exactly what maps would be most useful here, and then request them. I'll see if I can find the editor I remember, but there are probably others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is one of the places I was trying to remember, but sadly it appears to be moribund. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the links that Maile had provided and found a few more maps I didn't know existed.

  1. I put two of these in the Republic of Texas section in the article. One shows the location of the Rep. of Tx in comparison to Mexico; the other shows it in comparison to the US. Keep both? Keep just one? Ditch both?
  2. For the background section, instead of the existing map, we could use this map of Coahuila y Tejas. It shows location only.
  3. I also found a new resource of maps at the Portal to Texas History that are in the public domain. this one shows the movements of the armies, but it's hard to read. Ideally this is what I would love to show, but it is still under copyright. Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this map of Texas in 1838 that shows towns, rivers, and roads. Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And this one is fairly simple, BUT it has a misspelling (Houstin vs Houston) and it shows the Republic of Fredonia, which may confuse people. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Filibuster"'s speech-making meaning is now so much better known that I think you should clarify it inline; perhaps just with a parenthetical "(freebooters)".
    • Changing it to "freebooters". - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment here from an American. I had to look up the word filibuster when I first started seeing it on Wikipedia used in military terms. To me, a filibuster is a long-winded talk-a-thon in government legislative bodies to prevent business from being done. That said, I don't know if I've heard the word "freebooter" used much at all. — Maile (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Freebooters is not a term I'm familiar with. ALL of the sources use filibusters. Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I went with "irregular soldiers acting without authority", does that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I put filibuster back in. That's the proper term, and it is widely used in military articles. Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            If it's the proper term, we should use it, but can we add "(irregular soldiers acting without authority)" or some other explanatory parenthesis after it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the mention of Coahuila y Tejas, I'm no longer clear what geographical area the article is referring to by "Texas" -- e.g. when it says "Texas was very sparsely populated". Does this refer to the area in red labelled Texas on the map? Or the area claimed by Texas after the revolution?
    • That's a great question. When I used Texas throughout the article, I meant Mexican Texas, the boundaries set out in the first paragraph of background. Coahuila y Tejas had different boundaries, and the Republic of Texas had yet another set of boundaries. I need to think on this a little. Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1834, an estimated 30,000 Anglos lived in Coahuila y Tejas,[19] compared to only 7,800 Tejanos": if this refers to the population of all of Coahuila y Tejas, as it appears to, it seems odd to refer to the non-Anglos as Tejanos if they lived in what used to be Coahuila and would never be referred to as Texas. Or have I misread this?
  • It appears that Béxar is shorthand for San Antonio de Béxar; it took me a while to work that out. Initially I thought Béxar must be another town. Could this be introduced as an abbreviation?
  • The location of the capital of Coahuila y Tejas is important at a couple of points -- first when it's pointed out that it's hundreds of miles from the Anglo settlers, and later when Viesca decides to convene the state assembly in Béxar instead because it's further from the Mexican Army -- but it's never named and the location is never given.

Gonzales:

  • The flag image looks very like a modern impression to me, and not a reproduction of the original, assuming that it's known exactly what that looked like. I think this image might be better, though I don't know where this version actually comes from. I'm not going to be in Austin again before March, otherwise I'd go to the museum and check.
  • This isn't a requirement, just a suggestion, but you might consider a general area map with the main placenames indicated, including the key battles, and also some indication on the same map of modern boundaries. I've actually been to Gonzales, which puts me in a pretty small minority of Wikipedia readers, and even so I wouldn't mind being reminded just where it is. This map, from the Roman-Persian wars article, is the sort of thing I'm thinking of.
    • I agree with you, but I am hopeless at creating maps. The one in the Goliad campaign section is the only one I've created, and I think it's awful. I can make one similar to that with more city names, if you think it would be worthwhile.Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      See comment above about requesting maps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Coast campaign:

  • "The remainder of the Mexican garrison, who had been out on patrol, approached": to my ear this should be "which", not "who", but perhaps it's an AmEng/BrEng difference.
    Done. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accompanied by 15–20 loyal centralists from San Patricio": I had to search for "centralist" to realize that this meant supporters of the centralized Mexican government. How about "accompanied by 15–20 centralists, loyal to the Mexican central government, from San Patricio"?
    I changed a sentence in background to read "Santa Anna soon revealed himself to be a centralist, transitioning the Mexican government to a centralized government.". Hopefully that makes it more clear. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all communication with the Mexican interior would now be transferred overland": not sure what "transferred" means here. If I understand the intended meaning correctly, how about rewriting the last two sentences of that paragraph as follows: "With their departure, the Texian Army controlled the Gulf Coast, so Cos's communication with the Mexican interior now had to be overland. The slower land journey left Cos unable to quickly request or receive reinforcements or supplies." I changed "slower" to "land" because technically the land route was probably slightly shorter; surely the point is that it was slower?
    I changed it to this -> "With their departure, the Texian Army controlled the Gulf Coast, forcing Mexican commanders to send all communication with the Mexican interior overland. The slower journey left Cos unable to quickly request or receive reinforcements or supplies." It was probably longer and slower, but slower gets the point across. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Béxar:

  • Why did Austin resign? I assume it was his position as commander of the Army of the People that he resigned from?
    • Yes, he resigned as commander of the army to become head delegate to the United States asking for volunteers and other assistance in the revolution. Karanacs, I will let you word it as you will in the article. Check page 233 from Edmonson's book Alamo Story.— Maile (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to -> "After Austin resigned his command to become a commissioner to the United States," (I had actually just taken this out in my last copyedit, so now it's back for clarity). Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Consultation and the Matamoros Expedition:

  • "Council members were enamored with the idea of": I checked and "enamored with" (instead of "enamored of") apparently is a fairly common usage, but it sounds very strange to my mostly BrEng ear. If there's another way to phrase this that you like equally well please change it; I think a lot of Brits would think this is an error.

Mexican Army of Operations:

  • "By December 1835, 6,019 soldiers began": if you're going to use "by", I think it has to be "had begun".
    Done. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Santa Anna disregarded Cos's promise not to take up arms in Texas as meaningless because it had been given to rebels": should be "regarded", not "disregarded"; or you could cut "as meaningless", but I think that's not as natural a way to say it.
    That's what I get for rewriting this sentence half a dozen times - I changed the meaning! Doh. Fixed. 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Alamo:

  • "Travis and Bowie would share command": why not just "Travis and Bowie shared command"?
    Done. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World" is capitalized as if it were a title, but you use it inline as if it were article text -- I think you have to go one way or the other. Perhaps just putting it in quotes would do the trick.
    • It's the name given to a letter. Those are not generally put in quotes. I definitely understand the confusion but I haven't figured out a better way to do it. Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      If that's the standard orthography let's leave it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of the reprinting of the letter, following by the mention of volunteers, makes it seem possible that some of the volunteers showed up because of the letter, but surely there wasn't enough time?
    • Some of the volunteers inspired by the letter did arrive before the final battle (Apr 21). Many more arrived between May and Sep. Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, then there's no problem; it's just surprising. You might mention that in the article but it's not necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't tell from the article which side asked Alsbury to negotiate -- she was sent to the defenders by Santa Anna? Or vice versa?
  • changed to "rebuffed by Santa Anna". Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GolIad campaign:

  • "Mexican double agents continued to assure Johnson and Grant that they would be able to take Matamoros easily": neither Johnson nor Grant have been mentioned before this.
    They are introduced in the Consultation and Matamoros Expedition section. In this section, should I mention again that they were the commanders of the Matamoros Expedition? Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no need; my mistake. Not sure how I missed that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map has an unlabelled red dot down by the Rio Grande river. Or is that a town called Rio Grande as well? And Matamoros should be marked on that map.

Mexican retreat:

  • "He secretly promised to persuade the Mexican Congress to acknowledge the Republic of Texas and the Rio Grande as the border between the two countries": perhaps "to acknowledge the Republic of Texas, and to recognize the Rio Grande as"? That would avoid the reader temporarily parsing the Rio Grande as something to be acknowledged in the same way as the Republic of Texas.
Done. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy:

  • "the Alamo Mission, now an official state shrine": is shrine really the right word here? It's a reasonable figurative use, but I think it's not quite right to use it next to "official".
    The Texas Legislature actually passed a bill that named the Alamo the official state shrine. 'Cause our politicians really don't have anything better to do.... Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. I used to live there; I should have guessed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1838's Mexico versus Texas": any reason not to name the author?
    Historians aren't entirely sure who wrote it. They speculate that it was Anthony Ganilh. I wasn't sure to put that in the article or not. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, but you might mention the possible authorship in a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done with my pass -- the second half of the article was very clean and I couldn't find much on two readings. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much to both of you. I'll get to the rest tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - as per usual, good writing. A few niggles:

  • ... Texians and a flood of volunteers from the United States systematically defeated the small garrisons of Mexican soldiers. By mid-December 1835 there were no remaining Mexican troops in Texas. - this could be combined into "... Texians and a flood of volunteers from the United States systematically defeated all the small garrisons of Mexican soldiers by mid-December 1835," I think.
  • Although the United States officially renounced that claim as part of the Transcontinental Treaty of 1819 ... - you should specifically note who this treaty is between.
  • More coming tomorrow. I was (forcibly) reminded that I had made plans for tonight. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed both of those. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maps edit

Hope y'all don't mind, I thought it would be easier to continue the map discussion down here. I followed the links that Maile had provided and found a few more maps I didn't know existed.

  • I put two of these in the Republic of Texas section in the article. One shows the location of the Rep. of Tx in comparison to Mexico; the other shows it in comparison to the US. Keep both? Keep just one? Ditch both? Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can request a new map that shows the locations of major towns in the region (thanks Mike Christie for the link to the project}}...but we have to decide what to ask for, and where to get the specific information. Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Texas_Revolution/archive1&oldid=648800214"