Talk:Samuel May Williams/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 16:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Will take a look at this one. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• "...provincial government in Monclova government..." Repetitive use of "government" here; the second one can be dropped.

• Agreed. Done. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• "He briefly returned to public service when accepted a diplomatic mission to negotiate a treaty with Mexico..." I noted the problem here in italics; can you clarify if it was Williams who accepted the diplomatic mission, or Texas as a whole?

• This is in the lede, so I am basing this on the article body. I changed the sentence to make it clear that Williams ("he") accepted the diplomatic mission. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Overall the lead is good, but it seems like it could be slightly compressed. It should be a summary of the article, and while it does that I think some more specific details can be removed here. For example it notes he learnt Spanish and French during his travels, but that is not mentioned in the body itself; ideally that should be removed from the lead and put into the body.

• I revised the lede, please let me know if you think anything else should be condensed or removed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• "...and his family tree included a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a president of Yale University." May be worth noting the names of these individuals.

• It would indeed be worth noting their names. Unfortunately, the source does not give them. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Williams left Baltimore to oversee freight bound for Buenos Aires..." Is there a date he left Baltimore?

• No. Only the sequence of his movements is known, not the exact timeline. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• "During his visit, word traveled to the capital city..." It's a little unclear who is visiting, Williams or Austin.

• Clarified. It is referring to Austin. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Austin had promised Williams an annual salary of $1,000..." Clarify what currency that is (USD or other), and it may be worth noting the value, either by noting it's current value, or a comparable value for the era.

• This would be US Dollars, as the only other option would be Mexican pesos, which would not have the "$" dollar sign. I'm adding 2019 dollars, but the problem is that this soon looks dated if not regularly maintained. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Early in 1834 he co-founded the partnership of McKinney and Williams..." As this starts a new section, replace "he" with "Williams."

• Done. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• "By 1829, Samuel and Sarah Williams were caring for two children." If I understand this correctly, the children were not Williams'? If so, it would be good to note they were orphaned or came from somewhere, in order to clarify this.

• Upon my reading of the source, they were both his. Please review the significantly revised sentence. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Unknown to Williams, by that time, the Mexican Army was marching across Texas. Before Williams returned to San Felipe, the town was destroyed by fire, as the Texas colonists escaped to the East." This sentence seems out of place in a section about Freemasonry. It would seem more appropriate to move it higher up in the article where it is more relevant to events of the era.

• I've significantly modified (hopefully simplified) the wording to give it more context, and given an additional source. I hope this makes sense to the reader, because adding a throwaway line about freemasonry in the "Texas independence" section, where it fits chronologically, would confuse the logic flow. I think. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Citation 32 refers to "Henson (2012)" but I don't see that in the bibliography.

• It's from the 1976 source. IIRC, Oldsanfelipe was initially working from a 2012 reprint of the 1976 source, and later fixed this. In any case, the claims certainly match the pages of the 1976 book. I have fixed the citation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, the Nichols book on Williams (1956) is listed in "Further reading," but not used as a source. Is there any reason it wasn't consulted?

• Ah! Finally a question I actually knew the answer to without having to do any research! Nichols published a complete biography of 331 pages, presumably a much-expanded version of her 21-page biography that appeared in The Southwestern Historical Quarterly. Unfortunately, neither ldsanfelipe nor I had access to this book. I'm certain it would have been very helpful. But if someone has the time, money, and energy to visit one of the eight libraries that hold it [1], I'm sure it would be enlightening. Therefore it's listed under "further reading". We discussed this at Talk:Samuel May Williams#Furthering discussion (sources). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Totally understand. A shame nearly all extant copies are in Texas, but can't work with what you don't have access to.

That should be it. I'll take another look once the above is addressed though, just to make sure nothing was missed. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: Unfortunately, the main contributor to this article hasn't edited since December. I'll ping them. I'll try to gather the sources and see what I can figure out, there doesn't seem to be anything insurmountable here. Thanks for the review! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@78.26: Thanks for the update. A shame to hear that, but if you think you can handle this, I'll keep it open until you either address everything, or don't think it will be possible. I've got both here and the article watched as well, so will keep track of things that way, too. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@78.26: It has been a few weeks now, has there been any chance to get anything addressed here? Kaiser matias (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: I have finished responding to each of your points to the best of my ability. If I haven't explicitly stated so previously, thank you very much for all the work you have put into this review. I look forward to your further input. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Well done on getting things fixed up. I know it is challenging to go in and work on something that you aren't the primary contact on, so your work is commendable. The article looks good enough for me to promote. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)