Template:Did you know nominations/Texas annexation
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 02:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Texas annexation edit
- ...
that Texas belonged to Mexico, Spain and France, and was independent before passing into American control?
Improved to Good Article status by 36hourblock (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 08:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC).
- If I might, I would like to suggest an ALT or two.
ALT1 ... that the Republic of Texas was heavily in debt, and its boundaries disputed, prior to its annexation by the United States?Alt2 ... that the original annexation treaty of the Republic of Texas proposed by United States President John Tyler could have divided Texas into four states, three of them possible slave states?- Alt 3 ... that the Republic of Texas presented a formal proposal for annexation by the United States to President Martin Van Buren who rejected it?
Not to make waves, but an explanation of why I offered the ALT hooks. The original hook is not so hooky to me. Anybody has ever seen a movie that involved Texas, or even turned on the news once in a while in America, knows this. No offense meant Matty.007, but the original hook is the equivalent of saying, "Did you know that the United States was once owned by England?" In fact, the North American continent itself was largely owned by England, Mexico, Spain or France before a lot of war and bloodshed happened. Texas didn't just "pass into American control". Wars were fought to win its independence, and the American government wasn't all that fond of annexing Texas. It took a lot of political maneuvering to get the legislation passed in Congress. 36hourblock who took that article to GA status did a tremendous job of a complicated issue. Matty, I see you already mentioned this nomination to 36hourblock, but I also transcluded this template on his talk page . — Maile (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would disagree that saying Texas used to be French is on the same scale as saying the US used to be English. There is a clear difference in the proportion of the fact, Texas is only one 52 of the US, so whereas many people will know the US was British, not as many abroad will know Texas was independent. If you want an alt, I think focussing on the rejected annexation proposal is probably most interesting. Thanks, Matty.007 11:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I encourage you to offer an ALT of your own. The article is about the annexation itself, and it would be nice if the chosen hook focused on that. What was annexed was the Republic of Texas. Texians wanted annexation because the Republic was bankrupt and Mexico refused to recognize its independence - they wanted the protection of the United States. One of the annexation proposals was to not even have Texas as a state, but just a territory. If you go into who once owned Texas, it takes it off into background, not the annexation itself. Who previously owned Texas, IMO in nominating the article for DYK, is not as important as the how and why of annexation. Did You know (couldn't resist that one) ... that French colonization of Texas is actually a Featured Article?— Maile (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Alt 4: ... that the Senate rejected a proposal for the annexation of Texas by 2:1? Matty.007 12:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I encourage you to offer an ALT of your own. The article is about the annexation itself, and it would be nice if the chosen hook focused on that. What was annexed was the Republic of Texas. Texians wanted annexation because the Republic was bankrupt and Mexico refused to recognize its independence - they wanted the protection of the United States. One of the annexation proposals was to not even have Texas as a state, but just a territory. If you go into who once owned Texas, it takes it off into background, not the annexation itself. Who previously owned Texas, IMO in nominating the article for DYK, is not as important as the how and why of annexation. Did You know (couldn't resist that one) ... that French colonization of Texas is actually a Featured Article?— Maile (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would disagree that saying Texas used to be French is on the same scale as saying the US used to be English. There is a clear difference in the proportion of the fact, Texas is only one 52 of the US, so whereas many people will know the US was British, not as many abroad will know Texas was independent. If you want an alt, I think focussing on the rejected annexation proposal is probably most interesting. Thanks, Matty.007 11:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Full review needed of article and hooks, including the usual including hook and article sourcing, newness, neutrality, and close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Review: article went to good article status same day as nominated, so new enough. It is big enough. There are plenty of references. Credits correct person who has been working on this since the beginning of the year. Reads neutral. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- It would be helpful to have a full rather than partial review: nothing was said about which hooks are valid and which are not, or about their sourcing—plenty of references is one thing, but each hook needs to be checked to make sure the facts are in the article and sourced by the end of the article sentences when they appear. There also doesn't appear to have been even a spot-check for close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, I can offer part of the review. But since three of the hooks are mine, I can't complete it.
- - No QPQ necessary. Not a self-nom.
- - Impossible to check close paraphrasing, since all 199 citations are off-line
- - Article achieved GA status March 22, 2014
- - The original hook is sourced throughout, because that hook is what the entire article is about. However I have also stated my opinion above that I believe the original hook is not preferable and also not really correct to say Texas "passed into American hands", since it took a war with Mexico, bankruptcy of the Republic and multiple tries at annexation, before it was a done deal. Annexation is not "passing" into any country's hands.
- - ALT4 is stated in the article and sourced at the end of the sentence with Ref #138, but it might be more correct to clarify it was the "United States Senate", and the proposed annexation was to the United States.
- - No dabs or redirects of concern.
- - And while I can't approve my own hooks, let me help the next reviewer to find where these are:
- ALT1 - Last paragraph under section "Texas Settlement and Independence" and first paragraph of section "Tyler-Texas Treaty and the Election of 1844"
- ALT2 - First paragraph of section "Tyler-Texas Treaty and the Election of 1844"
- ALT3 - Last paragraph of section "Jackson and Van Buren Administrations"
- Hope this helps move this along a little. Somebody else needs to verify Alts 1,2, 3 and complete this review. — Maile (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I had not finished my review yet. The article is so big it is not feasible to check it all for plagiarism. GA requires that this is not problem, but I suspect it was not checked there either. I like the ALT3 hook best. This hook is short enough, in the article and is cited. Confirmed on p367-8 of "The Road to Disunion: Volume I: Secessionists at Bay" which is on google books. Hook links to the correct article (don't laugh this has failed to happened before). No plagiarism from this reference. Good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
