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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2020 [1].

Samuel May Williams[edit]

Nominator(s): Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been in development for several years, and I have written most of the copy based on multiple sources, including one book-length biography. Despite the fairly rich selection of sources on Williams, he is largely forgotten in Texas, even in his adopted hometown of Galveston. I believe the article presents a complete and balanced view of this very complex person, including some reasons offered by reliable sources explaining the indifference to his memory among Texans. The article has benefited from proofreading and criticism by experienced editors, both inside and outside of peer review.

This article is about Samuel May Williams, a tri-lingual merchant from Providence and Baltimore. He did business in Argentina and New Orleans before his arrival to Texas, where he served as secretary to Stephen F. Austin. He and a business partner were financiers of the Texas Revolution.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Some of your images are missing alt text

Fixed.

See MOS:CREDITS

Fixed.

File:Wreck_of_the_Invincible.jpg is tagged as lacking author info

Added author to Commons documentation. I do not know why the US Navy publication gives attribution to Humble Oil Company.

File:Plan_of_the_City_of_Galveston,_Texas.jpg: why is the library believed to have held copyright?

The map was printed in 1845 and the file says that it's in the public domain. I don't understand how the library claims rights. It's clear that I need to understand image issues better. Does this image need to be removed?

No, but the tagging needs to be changed. The current tag would be appropriate for a case where the work's copyright holder released it into the public domain. If you can confirm that the map was published (not simply created) in 1845, then you can substitute a tag noting that the copyright is expired due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found another copy of this map at Baylor University, which lists the imprint as "New York: Lith. of G. & W. Endicott, 1845." Is this evidence of printing or evidence of publication? Second, when you say "tag" does that refer to image caption, or something we attach to the file in the Commons?

If there were multiple copies with the same date I'd say that's evidence of publication. By tag I mean a copyright tag at Commons, replacing the current one. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image until the free-use rationale can be resolved.

File:Commercial_and_Agricultural_Bank_of_Texas_$1.00_(one_dollar)_private_scrip_(8519862080).jpg: as per the Flickr tag, is more specific copyright information available? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[2] "No known copyright restrictions." This was a bank note printed in Mexican Texas in 1835, but never circulated.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's reflected in the current Flickr tag. But if you take a look at the tag's wording, "Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined". So if the note was never circulated, when is the first confirmed publication?

Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This note is part of the Rowe-Barr Collection of Texas Currency, donated to the SMU Archives in 2003. I cannot find any information that would indicate an early publication date. I cannot find any information about rights in addition to what is contained in the documentation in the Commons file. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible the work was never published prior to 2003? If so you could look at the PD-unpublished tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to determine the publication date, though it seems likely that it's in 2003 or later. A bot performed an image license review in 2016, and Commons policy reserves the authority to conduct Flickr image reviews for administrators and other trusted editors COM:LR. I removed the image from the article until the free-use rationale can be resolved. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I think I have the tags for the two images sorted. Please check the new tags and let me know if you need any other information. Thanks for your patience. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kaiser matias[edit]

I'll note that I had previously reviewed the article for GA, and made comments at the Peer Review. Things I've noted there have been addressed, and I feel the article is good at this point. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruby2010

Just adding some thoughts below on the lead for now:

I wonder how important it is to the subject to mention in the first sentence that he was a "close associate of Stephen F. Austin."? I did not know who that was before reading the article, so I did not understand the importance of it. I would suggest either removing that part from the sentence, or adding additional text clarifying who Austin was. If you opt to leave him listed there, then I'd suggest shortening the later mention of Austin later in the same paragraph.

Williams's association with Austin is an important one, so I am retaining it, but adding a bit of context.

... clerking and later adding - is there an article you can link "clerking" to?

Fixed.

... then formalized a partnership of with Thomas F. McKinney. - extra word in there

Fixed.

Definitely needs a link to Texians and Galveston, also recommend you find target articles for Brazos District, Texas independence, Texas Attorneys General, and Panic of 1857.

Provided links to all except the Brazos District. I removed this phrase as a non-essential detail.

Williams then returned focus to introducing the first bank in Texas, succeeding in 1848. Seems to be missing a word.

Fixed.

Many of Williams' friends and allies distanced themselves from the bank and encourage him...' Tense issue.

Fixed. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far (having just read the lead), my main critique would be to consider that your readers, including me, may not know much about Texas history. Wikilinks and other minor clarifying text would help. Ruby2010 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert anything you disagree with.

Stephen F. Austin hired Williams for his colony in 1824, clerking and later adding the title of secretary...: suggest "Stephen F. Austin hired Williams for his colony in 1824, as a clerk and later as secretary..."; as written it's too easy to read Austin as the subject of "clerking".
Edited to removed confusion about the subject of "clerking."
However, by 1836, Williams and his partner, Thomas F. McKinney, sided with the Texians against Mexico. Suggest making it clear to readers unfamiliar with the history that this was the Texas Revolution.
Changed the reference to the Texas revolution and added internal link.
Williams left Baltimore to oversee freight bound for Buenos Aires, where he stayed to conduct further business in South America. The Williams family conducted a robust trade with Argentina, shipping food in exchange for cash or hides. There Williams learned the Spanish and French languages, and his business dealings gave him experience in navigating Spanish business and political customs. I think this would be better reorganized to put the general statement about their business first: "The Williams family conducted a robust trade with Argentina, shipping food in exchange for cash or hides. Williams left Baltimore to oversee freight bound for Buenos Aires, where he stayed to conduct further business in South America. There Williams learned the Spanish and French languages, and his business dealings gave him experience in navigating Spanish business and political customs." I didn't make the change myself because I want to be sure the sources put the "robust trade" prior to Williams' departure from Baltimore.
Yes, this improves the narrative. I adjusted inline citations to make the edit work.
Suggest saying that Frantz, Nichols and Henson are historians, or biographers, or whatever. I'd also suggest putting the discussion of the uncertainty about the date in a footnote -- it's not a key point and it interrupts the narrative. If you don't, I'd at least move it to the end of that paragraph -- right now the hedging about the date comes before we even mention New Orleans.
Moved the discussion of the timeline to the end of the paragraph.
I know why the section title is "Gone to Texas", but most readers won't know it and it will seem odd to them without an explanation. A link to Gone to Texas would work, but we're not supposed to link section titles. I don't see an easy way to make it clear; it might be best just to make the section title "Texas" if you can't work the phrase into the paragraph text.
This is a pretty important aspect of Texas history and it explains that Williams was one of many Americans who moved to Mexican Texas in order to escape debts. Fortunately Henson provides a brief explanation, so I have echoed this in this recent edit. I hope the point becomes clear to the reader. If not I can revise again. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Williams first arrived in Texas, Stephen F. Austin, the son of the deceased empresario, traveled to Mexico City in order to reinstate and implement the Austin Colony. Using "empresario" isn't helpful; it's already clear what Moses Austin did, so most readers who have to follow the link will find that it doesn't add anything to their understanding of the sentence. I'd just make it "Moses' son, Stephen F. Austin". And why "reinstate"? The colony did not already exist so it could not be reinstated. Do you mean the contract needed to be reinstated?
Made changes. This was not a seamless transition. The politics of the early Mexican Republic was very fluid. Moses Austin's original negotiations were with New Spain, but Stephen was negotiating with the ~~Republic of Mexico~~ Mexican Empire. This article should not address this in detail, but I just wanted the reader to be aware of the instability of the colonization contract.
~~This is around the time that Williams reverted to his birth name and earlier identity: any reason this can't be just "to his birth name"?~~
I agree. Thanks for your comments. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the changes just made has removed the link to "empresario". There's now only one instance of the word left in the article, so I'm not sure how much value it has, but if you keep it I would link it again.
Austin appointed Williams as a recording secretary: just checking that "a" is correct; there could have been more than one?
Austin later claimed that Williams had been underpaid for his service: given that it appears from the previous paragraph that Williams did not receive his full salary, can we drop "claimed"? Or is Austin referring more generally to Williams having been worth more than he had received?
Early in 1834 Williams co-founded the partnership of McKinney and Williams: Thomas McKinney is mentioned in the lead but has not yet been introduced in the body; I think a sentence would be helpful, even if almost nothing is known about Thomas. Perhaps "Early in 1834, Williams cofounded a business partnership with Thomas McKinney, setting up a warehouse... The firm, named McKinney and Williams..." And if any context is known about Thomas that would be worth adding. And was it the firm, the warehouse, or Williams that relocated to Quintana?
caused the state of Coahuila and Texas to split into two capitals: needs rephrasing; the state didn't split into two capitals. And can we put a date on this?
During meetings at the state capital, Williams bought 100 leagues of land in northeast Texas from the Monclova government at an eighty percent discount. Given that we've just said there are two state capitals it's a bit confusing to start the sentence by referring to "the state capital". Can we just cut that clause and start with "Williams bought..."? We could start the next sentence with "While in Monclovia" instead of "During the trip".
I think a parenthetical explanation of "the Consultation" is necessary for readers unfamiliar with Texas history.
Why did the Texians regard the 1835 land sale as corrupt? I'm not expert on the revolution but I know that by mid-1835 public opinion was moving strongly towards independence, so perhaps that's what you mean. I think a couple more words about this would help. And if the offer of land for sale can be dated more precisely than just 1835 that would be good -- even "mid-1835" or "early 1835" would help set context, since the revolution started in October.
His participation in the Monclova government aroused the resentment of such persons, many of whom were already suspicious of Williams because of his former position of power in granting land in the Austin Colony. I think this could be simplified to "They resented his participation in the Monclova government, and many of them were already suspicious of Williams because of his former position of power in granting land in the Austin Colony."
He pivoted toward Texas independence while relying on financial assistance from his brother, Henry Howell Williams. He borrowed against his brother's credit to obtain the 125-ton schooner Invincible in support of a Texian naval force. Suggest shortening these: perhaps "He pivoted toward Texas independence, borrowing against the credit of his brother, Henry Howell Williams, to obtain the 125-ton schooner Invincible in support of a Texian naval force." But looking at the rest of the paragraph I see that we essentially repeat this information in "These loans to the Texas cause...", and then it's summarized again in "Thus the Republic..." This doesn't seem very concise.

-- More later, probably tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McKinney and Williams were investors and co-founders of the Galveston City Company with Michel B. Menard. Menard hatched the development scheme in 1833, coordinating to acquire a Mexican title to bayside land at the east end of Galveston Island from Juan Seguin. How about something like "In 1833, McKinney and Williams partnered with Michel B. Menard to found the Galveston City Company, purchasing, from Juan Seguin, a Mexican title to bayside land at the east end of Galveston Island". If we say the company purchased the land we don't need to say they were investors, and I think it helps to have the date up front. Also I see our article on Juan Seguin puts the accent in: "Juan Seguín"; perhaps we should do the same.
Galveston City Company purchased from Seguin a league and a labor, or about 4,605 acres: both these terms were introduced earlier, but not linked till now; I'd move the links up, and I think we should be consistent about using italics (or not) for these terms.
Both Williams and McKinney joined the company's board of directors: this makes it sound as though they did not join the board till 1838 -- is that correct? I'd have thought they'd have been on the board from the start if they were equal investors with Menard.
Not sure what to do about this but in the "Mercantile business" section you have two consecutive paragraphs starting "McKinney and Williams"; one refers to the individuals and so the verb is "were", with a plural subject; the other refers to the company which is singular so you have "its", not "their". When I saw the second paragraph it stopped me dead for a second. I think it would best to either find a way to distinguish the two usages, or rephrase so that only one of the two usages shows up in the article. You also have "Their principal developments" which ought to refer to the individuals, since in American English companies are singular, but I think it's meant to refer to the company.
establishing direct trade between England and the Republic of Texas: was this the first instance of direct trade between the two? If so I'd make that clear; if not I'm not sure it's worth mentioning, or at least say "an early instance of" or something along those lines.
In 1839, Williams represented Galveston County in the lower house of the Congress of the Republic of Texas. McKinney and Williams used their commission house to support the Williams campaign. They offered to buy Texas Treasury notes (redbacks) for 50 cents on the dollar just as rival commission houses offered only 37.5 cents on the dollar. Substantively, he campaigned based on a conservative monetary policy in response to the Republic's devaluing currency. Several things here. I think the sequence is wrong; why start by saying he was a representative and then go back in time to talk about the campaign? ~~Does "redback" help the reader here?~~ Is there a link? And if they were being bought at a discount does that mean the new Republic was under financial stress, and that connects to the conservative monetary policy? I think this could all be tied together a little more than it is. And what does "substantively" add?
Later: I now see you use "redbacks" later in the article, so that's a good reason. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have a red link for Timothy Pillsbury, but we have an article on him, with only one L: Timothy Pilsbury. Not sure which is correct so just letting you know.

Stopping there for tonight. Generally it looks to me as if all the right material is here, but it needs a comb run through the prose -- not for copyediting in the sense of ironing out grammar glitches and poorly constructed sentences, but to assemble this information into more of a narrative. I know that can be difficult when the material comes from different sources. So far I would not vote to support, but I think it's within reach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it in the interests of the Galveston City Company to oppose Allen's election as mayor? And why are "conservatives" and "liberal" in quotes?
What does it mean to say that Williams' recommendations were "Hamiltonian"?
The paragraph starting "President Sam Houston" raised several questions for me. We say "As late as 1843, Mexico did not recognize the sovereignty of Texas", but Texas did not become a state until 1846. So did Mexico recognize Texas prior to statehood? I didn't think it did. And if the conversations didn't even start till December 1843, it seems odd to mention 1843 in that introductory sentence. I think it would be better to give more context. And does "a proposal which was unpopular in Texas" refer to "a cease fire and peace talks"?
Texans would benefit from the passage of such legislation; however, Williams and his former business partner had not been repaid by the Republic of Texas for its war debt: I think the point here is that Williams was campaigning on a platform that would benefit him personally; I'd make that clearer.

Oppose. I've now reached the end of the "Mercantile business" section and am going to stop and oppose on prose grounds. As I said above, it's not simple copyediting that's needed; there are just too many places where the information is not presented to the reader fluently. I've tried to suggest rephrasings where possible but it really requires familiarity with the sources to get this right, so I'm hesitant to jump in and edit. If this FAC is archived I'd like to try to help with the fixes, working on the article talk page, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

The extent of the concerns Mike raises at this stage of a long review indicates it's time to archive this and work on it outside the FAC process. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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