Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jim Bowie

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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

---

Jim Bowie

Check external links

This article about a legendary American frontiersman is currently a Good Article. It is comprehensive, well cited, and well-written. There has been much speculation about Bowie's life and the facts are often mixed with legend. I've attempted to address the various stories about his life and death in as neutral a manner as possible. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick google is showing me photographs of the subject that should be pd. Might be nice additions.--Doc^g 18:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the photos that appear on a Google search are variations on the same one that is currently used in the infobox. Bowie was only known to have sat for one portrait, and this is it. There are other images that show Bowie portrayed in various movies, but I didn't think any of those were notable enough to include in the article. Open to a mind change on that, though.... Karanacs (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments—Weak support; the writing is much improved. Please "fix the." final punctuation in "The Alamo" section where quotes start within a WP sentence; and I see at least one caption with a final period closing what is just a nominal group rather than a full sentence (Lopez). Tony (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• MOS: hyphenate "19th-century" when a double adjective.
• "the then-vice governor"—remove the hyphen.
• Why you'd want to spell out "nineteen/th" but use numerals here ("his father owned 8 slaves, 7 horses, 11 head of cattle, and 1 stud horse") is beyond me. Better to spell out single-digits; I see "30" later. See MOS.
• How do you "gift" a servant? Were they slaves?
• Audit for ungainly repetitions, e.g., "... many British knife manufacturers were producing Bowie knives, shipping many of them ..."
• Uncomfortable merging of two different ideas in this sentence: "The design of the knife continued to evolve, and it is generally agreed to have a blade 8.25 inches (21.0 cm) long and 1.25 inches (3.2 cm) wide, with a curved point."
• "700,000 acres (2,834 km²)"—No, hectares please.
• "most of it in land with questionable titles"——>"most of it in land of questionable title".
• I hope that Hopewell (1994) is an authoritative text; it dominates your citations list. Ensure that there's consistently a space after "pp.".

These are very random samples of why at least an hour by a good copy-editor is necessary. Tony (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU for your comments. I've implemented all of your suggestions. I assume that the servants mentioned were slaves, but it was not specifically stated. Hopewell is the definitive biography. Several other biographies have been produced for children, but no (or few) other scholarly works focus specifically on Bowie. Karanacs (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. A nicely structured and well-written article. I do have a question mark over this sentence though: "Stephen F. Austin founded the group by employing up to thirty men to help keep the peace, primarily by chasing Indians". Makes it sound like a game of tag. How does "chasing Indians" help keep the peace? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I rewrote the sentence to be "Stephen F. Austin founded the group by employing up to thirty men to keep the peace and protect the colonists from attacks by hostile Indians." I think you are right and this makes more sense. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: I left messages on the talk pages of User:Mike Christie, User:Casliber and User:Dweller asking them to take a look at the article, as I've reviewed several of Mike's (and hoped he could return the favor) and I've seen that Casliber and Dweller review a lot of articles. I am by no means asking them to support the article, I'd just like more eyes on it so that we can figure out what else could be improved. Karanacs (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dweller

• Q. If only one person escaped from the Alamo, how could there be eyewitnesses (plural) to the moving the bed story?
• The article is sparsely illustrated. I dislike illustrations inserted purely for aesthetics but as there are so few (1!) of the subject, you can easily justify including some pictures of some of the major personalities referred to substantially in the text.
• I second the suggestion made above by Tony that this gets a thorough copyedit by someone not previously associated with the article. I noticed lots of irritating niggles that detract from an otherwise excellent article. I'd rather give a thorough review once this has been done. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Only one man deserted from the Alamo. While all of the defenders died, the Mexican army spared the women and children and two slaves. I've added a sentence that specifically mentions that. I've also added two images of others important in the Alamo fight (William B. Travis and Santa Anna). I've also put in a request to have User:BQZip01 help with copyediting and am waiting to hear from him. Thanks for your time. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments prose is fair and I'm wading though. The Early Years has a bit of 'and then X happenedd, and then Y, and then Z...', which is I guess dependent on the information known and maybe cannot be helped. But any descriptors of episodes you can add would be appreciated (eg extent of his fathers' injuries, or fact that reading and writing was unusual at the time. Census literacy figures may be good. More later cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was perplexed by 'gifted' too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

further establishing his reputation - as a what? Also if he already had a reputation, needs a different verb here. 'boosting' or somthing similar but less colloquial. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anglo colonists - I wouldn't use this like this. Bit colloquial - 'English-speaking'? or something similar? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Anglo colonists" is the term that is used in most of the histories of the period. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

rumblings, - tad colloquial - 'rumours of unrest'? or something similar? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support. A fine, detailed article. I have a few questions and suggestions; not many of these are necessary for me to support.

• Bowie and his brother Rezin enlisted in the Louisiana militia in late 1814. The War of 1812 ended on 24 December that year…: does "that year" mean 1814? I think it must, and reading the rest of the sentence clarifies the sequence. However, because of the date in the name of the war, this is a slightly disconcerting thing to read. (I know nothing about the war of 1812 and couldn't have told you if it lasted till 1814 or not.) If you can find a rephrasing that reads less oddly, that would be handy.
  • I'm a bit puzzled by this too, on further investigation. Although the Treaty of Ghent was signed in December 1814, ending the War of 1812, it appears that Jackson didn't immediately get to hear the news, as he was still fighting in January 1815: "Unaware of the peace, Jackson's forces moved to New Orleans, Louisiana, in late 1814 to defend against a large-scale British invasion. Jackson defeated the British at the Battle of New Orleans on 8 January, with over 2,000 British casualties and fewer than 100 American losses. It was hailed as a great victory, making Andrew Jackson a national hero, eventually propelling him to the presidency." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That was me, sorry, I had changed it to reduce repetition from 1814 but now realise it added ambiguity. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten those sentences again and I think they make a lot more sense now. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• he joined the Long expedition in an effort to free Texas from Spanish oversight. I'd suggest making this "he joined the Long expedition, an effort to free Texas from Spanish rule". I'd eliminate "in" because it's not Bowie's effort, it's the expedition's effort -- Bowie just joined the effort. I don't like "oversight" as it implies that the state already had some form of independence, and there was merely some notional oversight, rather than actual Spanish rule.

I've fixed this to be "the Long expedition, an effort to liberate Texas from Spanish rule." Karanacs (talk)

• There are a couple of places where a map would be handy for those not familiar with the local geography. None are necessary for FA, though, so I've posted those suggestions at the article talk page. Struck to make sure this is not interpreted as part of an oppose; we can continue this on the article talk page.
  • I'll look for some maps. I've had a hard time finding any and my map-making skills are nonexistent, unfortunately, so no promises it'll be quick. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• The story of his partnership with Lafite is remarkable. You make it clear that the law allowed for the refund of half the price of the slaves. However, the whole scheme seems so transparently fraudulent that I'd like the article to more directly affirm that the whole thing was completely above-board, if it was. Did the state actually know all the facts, including Lafite's involvement? Was everything Bowie did legal? If so, I think we need to be left in no doubt about it -- especially given that Bowie was comfortable skirting the law on other occasions.
  • The sources don't make it clear what the state officials knew, but I doubt that Lafitte's involvement would have been publicly known at that time. The state laws don't appear to have addressed the possibility that a slave smuggler would inform on himself; I doubt the legislature would have intended this to happen, but this wouldn't be the first LA law to have giant loopholes in it. (My favorite-until recently, it was illegal to buy alcohol if you were under 21 but legal to sell it anyone over 18). Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity the sources don't say more about that. It would be nice to clarify if you ever find a source.

• If the cause of Cecilia Wells' death is known, I think it would be good to include it.
  • It's unknown. I even checked the death records for the parish and couldn't find anything more specific. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• When he marries Ursula, you quote an amount in pesos shortly followed by an amount in dollars. I don't know how these are related, and I think that most readers will not. You may not be able to find anything like an exact exchange rate, but for this context I think it would be enough if you could say something like: "$223,000…many times more than the dowry contract required" or "not quite enough for the dowry" or whatever. (I'm guessing the former is more likely to be true.) If you can get an exchange rate, I'd suggest quoting the approximate dollar value of the pesos.
  • Addressed. The currencies were about equal then. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Is "Anglo" used in the historical works? It is a current colloquialism and I wondered if it was the standard term.
  • "Anglo" is the standard term used by historians to refer to the people who moved into the Mexican states from the US and Europe in this time period. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• If I understand the sequence correctly, Bowie, while a Mexican citizen and married to the daughter of a Mexican government official, ambushes a Mexican army, and then returns to San Antonio where he is not in any trouble for his actions. Am I missing something? Why wouldn't his ambush have annoyed the Mexican government? Did they not know who he was?
  • Mexico had no idea what to do with those pesky colonists and tried to ignore them until 1835. There were very few Mexican troops in the state, and they primarily tried to fend off Indian attacks. I'm not sure how to clarify this better in the article—do you have any suggestions? Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a sentence right after "…marched the soldiers back to Nacogdoches", saying something like you say just above, sourced if possible? E.g. "There were no repercussions for Bowie and his men for their attack on the Mexican army as there were very few Mexican troops in the state, and the Mexican government's policy was essentially to ignore the Anglo colonists." Mike Christie (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources, I was able to add a paragraph just before this that details that Mexico was actually in the midst of a little civil war at the time, and the commander Bowie defeated was on the losing side. 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• the Convention of 1833, which formally requested independent statehood in Mexico: I am unclear on the meaning of "in" here. Does it mean that the independence would have still been within a Mexican federation? Or that the convention was held in Mexico?
  • I clarified this. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• the San Felipe-Nacogdoches area of Texas: you wouldn't think of those two towns today as being in the same area, assuming you're talking about the current San Felipe, Texas. Back then, would this have meant "south eastern Texas"?
  • Tt would have meant the areas that included most of the Anglo land grants.

I think it will read oddly to anyone who knows those locations, and won't convey much to those who don't. How about, in lieu of a map, changing it to say "the Anglo colony lands in east Texas"? Mike Christie (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed this. 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Does Hopewell give any details about how we know about Bonham's resolution in favour of holding the Alamo? If it happens that the document itself survives, I think that would be interesting to mention. If it's just an eyewitness report, no need to add anything.
  • No details. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• The story of the line in the sand: I am baffled by this: "After its initial publication, this account was confirmed by several other eyewitnesses, but the story can only be authenticated by the word of the reporter": if there are other eyewitnesses, then surely the reporter is not the only person who can authenticate it?

I am striking this; I see you've clarified it in the article.

That's everything. A very interesting article. Mike Christie (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

I've struck one more point and am now happy to support; I have done so above. I still think the use of "authenticate" is a little odd; I'd just reduce that sentence to "…as Rose admitted to embellishing other articles…" but that's your choice. Mike Christie (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Support by — BQZip01 — ^talk

"Stories of his frontier spirit made him one of the most colorful folk heroes of Texas history." needs to be expanded upon in the body or removed from the lead.

I rephrased this sentence so that it actually makes sense now. The supporting evidence for the folk hero/legend part is in the Legacy section. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what was meant now. Much better phrasing. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"(USA)" isn't necessary after Kentucky. Click the link to Kentucky if you don't know about it...

It's not prohibited either. There have been several discussions about this on the Village Pump, and usually consensus says it's fine to have the country there. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. I did say weak oppose... — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"His father had been injured..." should be was injured. Keep an eye out for "had + verb"

Had is the correct verb form here. That is past perfect, which is used when describing an event that happened before another event in the past. The paragraph begins with "Bowie was born"...(in the past), and then goes further into the past to speak about his parents' marriage (had + past tense).Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I see your point there. No worries, my bad. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Although all of the Bowie children learned to read and write in English, Bowie and his elder brother Rezin could also read, write, and speak Spanish and French fluently.[6] The children were also taught how to survive on the frontier, as well as how to fish and run a farm and plantation. Bowie became proficient with pistol, rifle, and knife.[7] He had a reputation for fearlessness, and as a boy one of his Indian friends taught him how to rope alligators.[8]" Be careful here. I realize you are talking about Jim Bowie, but everyone mentioned in the paragraph is a Bowie as well. Stick with "Jim" for this paragraph to limit ambiguity.

"Shortly before Bowie's father died in 1818 or 1819, he gave Bowie and his brother Rezin each ten servants..." should be "their father."

Fixed. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bowie became famous as a result of a feud..." How famous? presumably the people involved in the land disputes knew of him and took him all the way to the Supreme Court? How about "nationally famous"? "Internationally famous"?

Changed to "internationally famous" Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"...nationally famous Fightin' Texas Aggie Band" now has a competitor I suppose. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"widow's weeds" what the heck are these?

That is the type of clothing that widows wore in those days. It's not a common term today (because specific mourning clothing is not that common anymore), but a Google search still turns up 15,000 uses of the term [1]. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote or a stub article as to what they actually are? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've wikilinked the term to the article Mourning, which discusses widow's weeds. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

More links of The Battle of Alamo to "Alamo" would be appropriate; at least one in the paragraphs about the Alamo.

First paragraph in that section now has a wikilink to Alamo mission, and there is a wikilink to Battle of the Alamo later in the section, when the siege begins. Good catch! Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

good 'nuff — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, from the semi-automated peer review program...

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]

The only dates that aren't wikilinked are the accessdates in the references, primarily because there is still argument on what the template is supposed to do. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would go ahead an link those appropriately anyway, but I won't hold up the nomination for this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I linked them. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”

I readily admit that some of the sections do have a lot of these terms, primarily because nothing is known for certain about parts of Bowie's life, and it's hard to be more specific. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair explanation. History about people's pasts is often murky. I just wanted you to be aware of it. It seems reasonably addressed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That said, these are simple fixes and should be easy to change. Once addressed/changed you have my complete support. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

still very weak oppose, but simply addressing these issues will likely be enough for my support. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You have my support, but please address the ambiguity concerns. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Interesting, gripping even, and meaty article about an iconic figure. Well done. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk —Preceding comment was added at 09:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.