Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Convention of 1833/archive1

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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:03, 23 March 2010 [1].

Convention of 1833

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bring to you another example of crazy Texas politics. Illegal political convention? Check. Crazy politicians who want to secede? Check. Racial tensions? Check. Ringleader arrested for treason? Check. Government bowing to demands from said crazy and treasonous people? Check. Alt text? Check. Still wondering how on earth Texas managed to successfuly separate from Mexico? Me too. Karanacs (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Dab links, external links, alt text all OK. Ucucha 18:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. The lead seems a bit too short to adequately summarise the whole article. Mephiston999 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I expanded the lead a bit, but since the article is so short I don't see much point in expanding it much beyond this. If you feel I've left out anything in particular, please let me know. Karanacs (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with regard to Criterion 1a - I never knew American history could be so interesting, given that they haven't got much (joke). An engaging and well-written contribution, I have taken the liberty of making a few edits rather than list a load of nitpicks here. If my suggestions are not helpful, please feel free to revert them. Graham Colm (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your suggestions very much - thank you! Karanacs (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, though some are a bit old.
- I don't think you need the (month year) in the citations, as it makes it look a little inconsistent, but that's minor and your call.
- Refs 16 and 19 aren't consistent (do you want to parenthesize "Texas States Historical Association" or not, and what date do you want, numbers or spelled out?) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fixed the ref formatting issues. I generally follow the month-year format for journal articles in case I come across another journal article written by one of these authors in the same year (this has happened a few times). Much of the research on this convention was done a long time ago, which is why the sources seem so old. My recent books, for the most part, don't include most of the details. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Are you gonna sort those refs chronologically as well as alphabetically? Missing refs: Barker (Oct 1952) [which one is the typo: '02 or '52? Both are in the notes. My money's on the former, but the latter is what shows up in the sources], Henson (1982). • Ling.Nut 14:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for noticing that. I've fixed the ref typo and added Henson. I also sorted the Barker refs. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose needs work. It's a worthy candidate, but an independent copy-edit is required throughout. I've looked through bits of it, especially at the top. More is needed.

MoS breach at opening: please see WP:MOSDASH concerning the spacing of en dashes. Here, 1 and 13 are the elements.
- Fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"whose" is awkward here, standing for "the Convention's". I take a soft line on getting around this engineering fault in the language, but this is too exposed, IMO.
Two "also"s in a short para (lead). Consider tossing the second one.
Consider trashing "some"—"After initial successes"?
Wrote the letter to whom?
"including allowing" ... ing ing.
"comprised of". Nope: "comprising" or "consisting of". Use the former if you want to emphasise wholeness.
Number of Americans blossomed? Just plain "increased" might be better. Or "rapidly increased".
"The proposed document"—the document itself wasn't proposed; it existed.
Another para with two "also"s. I think the one before "be interpreted" could go. And then the same in the para starting "A few of". Please audit for "also-itis", a disease. Again, the second of the two could probably go (you've already got "Going a step further", which does the job of connecting with the previous sentence). Every sentence is, by default, an also.
A few stubby sentences, which could be joined with semicolons, or here, subject to more major surgery: "This was a novel idea.[27] Spanish law did not prohibit such punishment."
"an uproar"; consider removing "an". Tony (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has no redirects, is this really not known by any other names? — Dispenser 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not known by any other names. Texans weren't that creative - we have the Convention of 1832, Convention of 1833, and Convention of 1836, with no nicknames for any of them. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference issues:

Multiple refs with same content, recommend using named ref:

Henson (1982), pp. 47–8.
Davis (2006), p. 92.
Barker (1985), p. 351.

Multiple references with the same name, causes improper linking (note overlap with previous issue):

henson47and48
davis92
barker351
ericson459

Multiple use of same author with {{citation}} causes duplicate id; see Template:Citation#IDs_must_be_unique and W3C markup validation for Convention of 1833

{{citation|last=Steen|first=Ralph W.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.