Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Alamo/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 23:54, 3 October 2009 [1].

Battle of the Alamo[edit]

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Of all the articles I have worked on, I am most proud of this one. I originally intended to complete the article by April 2008, but the sheer amount of research necessary pushed the date out just a bit ;) The Battle of the Alamo is probably the most famous event in Texas history, and I suspect most people have at least heard of it. For this article I consulted both the first full-length book written about the battle as well as the most recent research available plus lots of what was written in between. It amazed me to see how much of what I learned in school was inaccurate or POV. Please put aside any preconceptions you might have of what happened and enjoy this comprehensive overview of what actually occurred. Much thanks to User:Awadewit, User:Ealdgyth and User:Oldag07 for their very helpful comments in the October peer review. This is a long article, so thank you in advance to all reviewers who make their way through it. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, links, dabs All fine. A shining example to all, boss. RB88 (T) 17:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a new version and added the source information. Thank you. Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks so good, I am likely to support, but have not gotten past the LEAD yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaks needed
  • Oppose since there has been no response to my tweaks below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Mexican border region Texas," seems awkward. Should region be followed by a comma or the word "of"?
    • Done...Modernist (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the "of" because it is unnecessary. "Mexican" and "border region" are both used as adjectives. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of is only redundant if the entirety of the Texas republic is considered Mexican border region. Otherwise it is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've hit the nail on the head - Texas as a whole was considered a border province. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mexican forces had left behind 19 cannon, including an 18-pounder, which Jameson installed along the walls." - cannons should be plural.
    • "Cannon" is both plural and singular. Modernist pointed out a few instances in the text where "cannons" had been inserted and I've removed those so that the article is consistent. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on January 14 Neill approached Houston for assistance in gathering supplies" - comma after 14
  • "the Texians had neglected to spike their cannons before retreating" - what does spike mean?
    • I linked to wiktionary. Spike means drive something in the hole so that the gun can't fire. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "his famous knife" explained or linked above?
  • "In July 1936" should be followed by a comma.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Modernist. Tony, I don't usually edit on the weekends (beginning Friday afternoon), and it often takes me all day Monday to catch up on my watchlist. I promise I wasn't ignoring you! Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that FAC isn't a vote, and generally rationales are expected to accompany votes. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 05:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is the WP:LEAD so wordy. At 3388 characters it seems to long by simple measure and seeing redundant use of a phrase like "On Santa Ana's orders"" and other overly verbose uses, I can't help but think the lead could be cut down 5-10% fairly easily.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wordiness is one of my flaws; thank you for calling me on it. I've trimmed the lead by about 15%. I could possibly trim a little more, but I'm hesitant to do so unless you (or others) feel it is not focused enough as is. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is very good (thanks!). A few problems:
  • File:Alamo texas.jpg is missing alt text.
  • The alt text for File:Fall-of-the-alamo-gentilz 1844.jpg lacks what I see as the essence or gist of that image, which is the feeling of low walls in a shallow valley overlooked by rolling hills. That essence isn't described (and isn't really needed) in the adjacent text; could you please add it to the alt text?
  • Generally speaking alt text should not contain proper names as they cannot be verified by a non-expert who's looking only at the image, and anyway they're just repeating what's in the caption. Could you please reword/remove the following proper names from the alt text: "Long Barracks"; and "Mexican" and "Texian" in the phrase "dead Mexican and Texian soldiers".
Eubulides (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review - I am still learning how to write alt text and it is much harder than it seems. I've made the updates you requested. Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, it looks good now. (For me, writing alt text was a bit like riding a bicycle: there was an initial learning curve that was intimidating, but now that I'm over the hump it usually goes pretty smoothly.) Eubulides (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I'm a little confused by Antonio López de Santa Anna - was he a General or was he the President of Mexico? Or both? When did he storm the Alamo or mess with the constitution (dates?) it looks like first he was the president and messed with the constitution, and then he was the general who stormed the Alamo...Modernist (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Santa Anna was a general who became president and, while in office, led the army against Texas. I've added the date of the revocation of the Constitution to put that in better context, but I'm not sure how to clarify Santa Anna's roles better. I could add a footnote mentioning his previous military service? Do you have a better suggestion on how to make it clearer? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added President of Mexico to the lead, and thanks for adding the 1835 date. I'm still reading the rest...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • The numbers in the info box don't add up with 2 survivors from a strength of 182–260 we have 182–257 killed ? should the casualties be 180–258 ?
    • Most Americans, however, are more familiar with the myths spread by many of the film and television adaptations, including the 1955 miniseries Walt Disney's Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier and John Wayne's 1960 film The Alamo. - If you going to lave this in it need a cite --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was one additional man who may or may not have escaped (that's mentioned briefly in casualties). That's how the sources get to 260. The other fact is cited in the body of the article, but I can cite it in the lead as well. Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review:
    • Not sure about File:Alamo texas.jpg, architectural works may be photographed in the USA and the photographs reused without permission, but other works of art may not.
    • File:San Antonio 067.JPG I suspect is old enough to have its copyright expired (if it ever qualifies for one in the first place), but a confirmation of its date would be handy.
    • File:AlamoMemorial-5478.jpg, on the other hand, may not be. When was the memorial erected?
  • I haven't checked alt text, only copyright status. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not familiar with the rules about structures, so I will bow to your wisdom. If you think any (or all) of these images are inappropriately licensed I'll take them out.
      • I have no more information on the first image than what is on the image display page (and I assumed since it was on Commons it was okay).
      • San Antonio 067.jpg - this urn was built after 1939; I am not sure when.
      • The Alamo Memorial was erected in 1939.

Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • I've nominated the first image for deletion; the other two would appear to be fine due to {{PD-Pre1978}}. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, Stifle. I've replaced the lead image for now. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One minor thing I just wanted to point out that Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier specifically refers to a 1955 film compilation of three episodes of the miniseries. The miniseries debuted in 1954, though the episode "Davy Crockett at the Alamo" did air in February 1955 (according to Disney A to Z). Zagalejo^^^ 07:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's another source, from the American Film Institute. According to the AFI and the Disney book, the miniseries itself is simply called "Davy Crockett". Zagalejo^^^ 08:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the article back to your preferred wording, so that it is referencing the miniseries. Thanks for catching that! Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My previous edits weren't totally correct, so I made a few adjustments. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Zagalejo^^^ 20:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support Support

("Provisional support" just means that I haven't read the entire article yet, but like what I've read.)

The main text (post-lead) is nicely done. It has enough details to keep us on our toes and the narrative flows nicely. However, the lead will likely be confusing to readers unfamiliar with the history. One reason for this, of course, is that San Antonio, in March 1836, was in an unsettled time (no pun intended). It was formally still in Mexican Texas, but one from which all Mexicans had been driven out in December 1835. (Britannica, for example, begins its narrative in 1835 and it can then proceed in a linear fashion.) In a lead the author has to mention the pivotal event first and this creates a bit of a dilemma, if they are also trying to be sensitive to the needs of unversed readers. I've mentioned some of these things in the detailed comments, Talk:Battle_of_the_Alamo#F.26f.27s_detailed_FAC_comments_on_the_text, I've just left on the article's talk page.

Could we also have a higher resolution map or plan of Alamo? There is one hi-res one at the Texas State Legislature Web Site. Not sure, though, if it is old enough to be uploaded as PD-US-1923. The author McArdle (gifted the collection in 1927), but the sketch was very probably done much earlier. It has the Long Barracks, the Low Barracks, and the palisades clearly marked. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fowler, I'll work my way through your prose suggestions soon. The McArdle collection is PD (he died before 1923). I saw that drawing, but I thought it was pretty messy (I can't read most of the handwriting) and didn't know if it would help. Let me think about whether I can create a custom diagram based on that (images are not my strength). Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added my remaining comments on the article's talk page. Changing to support. Congratulations on writing an informative and enjoyable article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented many of Fowler's suggestions, as noted on the article talk page and his talk page. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small note. As part of the FAC, I suggest double-checking the accuracy and completeness of List of Alamo defenders. While working on Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people, I (and others) have created numerous redirects to that list. Many individuals listed on the Find-A-Grave website are Alamo defenders who seem to be otherwise non-notable. That being said List of Alamo defenders also includes links to a dozen biographies for more prominent Alamo participants. There are most likely a few more individuals for which a separate biography is warranted and these should be identified (say on the list's talk page). It's also quite possible that some members of the list already have an article even though the list has no link to it. I know that this FAC is really about the Battle of the Alamo article but the list is so closely tied to it that we should make sure it also meets basic quality standards. For the same reason, it makes sense to verify that Category:Alamo defenders and {{Battle of the Alamo}} are accurate and complete. Pichpich (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list of defenders article needs much, much work. I started on it ages ago and got distracted. I am intending at some point to attempt to bring that to featured list quality, but not any time soon. In response to your post, though, I scanned the list just now, and I suspect that at most there are two individuals who don't have their own articles and may justify them (one of those Anthony Wolf, has had the article previously deleted; as for the other, William Ward, I'm not sure if this is the same man as William Ward (soldier)- more research is needed). As far as I know, the template is as comprehensive as it should be - I chose the most well-known individuals to list, not all who have individual articles. Karanacs (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My only concern was to make sure that the list was accurate: the rest can wait of course. As for the template, I think a link to List of Alamo defenders or to Category:Alamo defenders would be a meaningful addition for readers. I just compared the bluelinks on the list with the contents of the category and added the category to George Washington Cottle and Isaac Millsaps. I also found three slightly problematic cases but since I have no expertise on the subject I'll leave you to decide how to resolve them. One interesting case is Moses Rose who is included in the category but not in the list. It's a tricky situation since he apparently left the battle but he might need to be added to the list. The same sort of problem applies to Juan Seguín who appears in the category but not in the list. As for George C. Kimbell, there's currently a separate article but it should perhaps be replaced by a redirect. Pichpich (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list of defenders is linked from the template; it is shown as "Defenders" in the left column; a few of the more notable people are listed to the right. The list is not complete or entirely accurate at this point. As you mention, several of the survivors have been omitted, and I believe that others who died during the battle are also omitted. There has been a lot of relatively recent research on who was actually at the Alamo, and I haven't finished reading enough of it to go back to this article. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. (By the way, none of the above should be taken as an opposition to FA status for the article) Pichpich (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_the_Alamo/archive1&oldid=1138455701"