Talk:Free State of Galveston

Request for info
I know there are some interested folks monitoring the article out there.

One area that I haven't explored as much as I'd like is the connection between Galveston and Las Vegas. From what I gather from the sources the connection actually ran very deep with Vegas somewhat modeling a lot of what it did after Galveston and a lot of the people, equipment, and money moving from Galveston to Vegas. The sources I have found touch on these things but don't provide a lot of detail. Maybe there simply are not any sources that have details on this since, obviously, it was all a bit shady but if anybody knows of any sources with more info please feel free to share or edit.

Also, I haven't found sources that really say a lot about how Galveston was viewed nationally and how it ranked as a destination. It would be interesting to make more concrete statements about this in the article but I have no sources to back up anything more concrete than what I have already put in there.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Explanation on racism text
E. Ripley recently made some copyediting changes (much appreciated!). I partially reverted the edits on racism and I wanted to explain why.

I tried to word what I wrote on racism carefully since obviously this can be a touchy subject, not that the way I wrote it is the best. Here were my concerns with the changes:
 * The changes right off the bat talked about attitudes toward racism instead of attitudes toward race. This implies that there was a significant anti-racism movement which I don't think is true (at least I have not seen sources to back that up). The point of the paragraph was not that the city was anti-racism but just that there is evidence that many were more tolerant than in some other places.
 * The changes switched the order of discussion to right off making a bold assertion that Galveston was more tolerant. The sources I have don't make this point very strongly so I was trying not come off making the point too strongly either. More importantly, since there was racism on the island leading off asserting that racism wasn't so much of a problem sounds POV. I intentionally first mentioned that there was racism so as not to sound like I was implying anything misleading.
 * I had deliberating compared Galveston to the U.S. instead of just the South but the changes used the South. On a personal level I always objected to the suggestion that segregation was a strictly Southern phenomenon. Given the international city that it was stating a national comparison seems appropriate.

Anyway, please do feel free to edit again. I just was concerned about the way the issue was being addressed.

--Mcorazao (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern with the old text was that the contrast wasn't presented in the proper order (if we suggest its attitudes were somewhat unique, we should then immediately follow that up with the example of its uniqueness). My concern with your new text is that it reads too much like an essay, with words like "Sadly" and etc.  I will clean it up. Otherwise though I don't disagree with your points above necessarily; more a matter of aesthetics. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 14:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Dates
Not a big issue but does anybody monitoring this discussion have an opinion about the date range to use in the infobox? Obviously there are no "official" dates. I chose to use the beginning of Prohibition in 1920 to the closing of the casinos in 1957. There was stuff going in Galveston before 1920, of course, and the "wide open" nature of it didn't really hit until the mid 20s (the opening of the Hollywood Dinner Club could be another start date). Though 1957 is a useful target, really by the end of the 40s the good ole days were over. Still things were pretty open in the 50s though there was more serious crime coming into the city so it wasn't exactly the same.

One argument in favor of keeping the 1920 date is that this was when "Splash Day" started which helped get the ball rolling as far as Galveston's establishing itself as a destination.

Anyway, if anybody has other opinions feel free to share.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I say we stick with 1920 - 1957. Most of the literature I have read say the open era began with prohibition in 1920 and ended with the raid in 1957, so for continuity's sake, I say we stick with those years. (BTW, up until last year a blackjack & 8-liner-for-cash "casino" disguised as a BBQ restaurant operated across the street from the police station lol) --Nsaum75 (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the article about the raid -- the police station, which moved last year, took up a block of Winnie Street, and was located on the northeast corner of the intersection of 26th and Winnie; Lucille's was located on the southwest corner of 26th and Winnie. The place was right across the street -- and operating for over 10 years LOL. --Nsaum75 (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments
I'm so sorry I missed the peer review!! I see that the article is up for GA; I'm not overly familiar with GA criteria, so can't help with that. Instead, I reviewed this against the FA criteria, because I mainly work within those. If you are not intending to go for FA, you can ignore some of this for now. For GA, I'd recommend that the citation points I brought up be fixed. Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall, the sourcing is excellent! This is not always the case with articles largely written by contributors new to the review processes - good work!
 * I will caution the use of Google books. They are a great start to research, but it is often necessary to read more of the book than is available in a limited preview.  That way you can be sure the statements are placed in the appropriate context.
 * There are quite a few references to Cartwright with no page numbers. This wouldn't be acceptable at FAC level (unsure about GA).
 * Background section
 * The first paragraph is a good start, but it doesn't flow well to me, and the chronology is off just a little. We may need a little more detail about the history of Galveston.
 * I think there needs to be clarification on when in the 19th century Galveston became the largest city, when it became the state's cultural center, and when the port started expanding so much. I have clarified a bit on when it became the largest city (late 19th century vs just 19th century), but I don't have details on Galveston's history after Lafitte.  Dates would be very helpful.
 * I'm not sure it is accurate to say that Galveston "began its life as part of" Lafitte's piracy. From my reading of Lafitte's biographies, I thought the island was pretty well abandoned when Lafitte was driven off.
 * Dates on the construction of the railway?
 * Need a citation for "This immigration trend substantially altered the ethnic makeup of the island as well as many other areas of Texas."
 * I would like some more details on the ethnic changes and why these groups chose to come to Galveston.
 * Prohibition section
 * Might need to make it more clear that prostitution was also illegal in Texas - it is implied here, but should likely be more specific.
 * Need to more explicitly define Prohibition; this term is common knowledge to those of us educated in the US, but may not be to people from other countries.
 * I'd like a little more background on the two gangs. Did they form as a result of Prohibition, or did they already exist in some form before that?  Were the gangs local, or branches of more widespread businesses?
 * What made the arrests "fortuitous" - is that foruitous for the police, or for the brothers? This word might be POV anyway.
 * You should probably add more information to "Maceos ran the island in full view for three decades." - I'd like to see a better explanation of how they "ran the island". Any examples?
 * Economy
 * This sentence Both families were wealthy with vast empires that reached far beyond their island. needs to be cited and possibly reworded - it sounds a bit melodramatic
 * I don't understand why the Pageant of Pulchritude (which is a totally great name) begins the Legitimate businesses section. There should be at least a topic sentence that will provide a better introduction.
 * Probably ought to be more specific here -> used by the military until the end of the war
 * Need a source for It never enjoyed the success envisioned by the Chamber, however.
 * Need a source for was so successful that it actually grew — tremendously — during the Depression
 * probably need citations for the paragraph on the military
 * If you can find appropriate sourcing, it would be interesting to know how much of the annual tourism industry was a result of the vice businesses. I'd love to see a short analysis of exactly how much "legitimate" business was unrelated to the vice stuff. I see that you have a paragraph on this later in the article.  Anything else to flesh it out?
 * Any more info on Al Capone and Albert Anastasia? That would be interesting for the history section.
 * definitely need a citation for In general, the community and its leaders treated vice-oriented businesses and legitimate businesses as equals.
 * definitely need citations for San Antonio had perhaps the second most infamous red-light district in the early 1900s and most major cities in the state had significant vice activities at least into the mid century. But during the Open Era Galveston's vice industries became clearly dominant as most other areas of the state were at various times forced to crack down on vice due to public pressure.
 * Culture
 * "some have argued that the city may have been the only one in the nation where these enterprises had the support of both the local government and the Roman Catholic Church" - do we have any particulars on who has argued this? This is really vague attribution for a pretty hefty statement.
 * May need to provide more explanation about the Kotton Karnival Kids - people from outside the US may not know what the KKK reference means.
 * Government and Law Enforcement
 * Need citations for much of the first paragraph.
 * End of an era
 * Any details on the conflicts with the US Treasury? This would make a good note if it is too detailed for this article.
 * Are there any further details on the effect of gambling legalization in Nevada? Since Galveston was essentially allowing the gambling places to run free, I wonder how big the effect was.
 * Any information on why the Texas corruption declined?
 * probably need citations for Sam and Rose Maceo transferred controlling interest of most of their Galveston empire to a new group dominated by the Fertitta family with investments coming from business interests around the island. The Fertitta group, however, never wielded the influence that the Maceos had. Sam Maceo died in 1951 and Rose in 1954.
 * Need citations for Non-vice crime increased in the city
 * Need citation for info on Carlos Marcello and David Ferrie
 * Was Paul Hopkins elected because he promised to shut down the illegal stuff? Was this primarily because of the increased crime?
 * Any info on why Fort Crockett was shut down? Was it related to the vice stuff in any way?
 * I would combine the "Aftermath" and "In modern popular culture" sections into a "Legacy" section. I would also include updates on what happened to some of the more famous buildings (like the destruction of the Balinese Room).  And is there more info about the musical?  Does it specifically focus on this period of Galveston history?
 * Section headings should not begin with "The" and should avoid repeating the title if possible (I see one called The Free State ends).
 * I think the article might be organized a little awkwardly. It seems that End of an era and the Prohibition and the Maceos sections could be combined into a history section.
 * The prose overall needs polishing. Sentences don't always flow, there is some repetitive or awkward phrasing, and some unencyclopedic tone

questions
copied from user talk:Karanacs I hope you don't mind my pestering. Can I ask for some clarifications on your feedback? Please don't feel obligated to respond if you are busy. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As a general question, since I am not a writer by profession can you offer any more specific guidance on how to improve the writing style since obviously this is a concern for you throughout the article?
 * Also, regarding citations, there are some cases where you ask for a citation on a statement that is described in the citation on a preceding sentence. Are you recommending that for any statement that could be questioned it should be cited even if it is the same citation as the sentence before?


 * There are quite a few references to Cartwright with no page numbers. This wouldn't be acceptable at FAC level (unsure about GA).
 * Can you clarify? I assume that you are talking about the Texas Monthly article (Cartwright 1993). Texas Monthly published the article online (the link is provided in the references). I don't know what the page number would be in the paper publication. My understanding is that a page number should not be necessary in this scenario.


 * The first paragraph is a good start, but it doesn't flow well to me, and the chronology is off just a little. We may need a little more detail about the history of Galveston.
 * Sorry to be dense. Can you clarify? I didn't intend this section as a whole to be strictly chronological. I was simply attempting to give a general impression of what happened in the city immediately preceding this time without being too detailed. What details would you recommend bringing out?


 * I'm not sure it is accurate to say that Galveston "began its life as part of" Lafitte's piracy. From my reading of Lafitte's biographies, I thought the island was pretty well abandoned when Lafitte was driven off.
 * I debated on what to say here. More than one source mentioned that Lafitte's legacy influenced how the island later developed. What I have read, although it is not detailed, is that the island was not completely abandoned though it was probably just a few stragglers that remained. Campbell's Bayou on the coast, for example, was established by one of his captains that did not go with him after he left. Probably, though, I should just take this out (it was more of just an interesting side note).


 * I would like some more details on the ethnic changes and why these groups chose to come to Galveston.
 * Can you clarify? I was trying to keep this section short (I'm sure I will get dinged in FA if the background becomes a large section). The only purpose in mentioning this was to point out that the Maceo's coming to the island was part of a larger demographic trend (and that trend probably made it easier for them to become established). My inclination would be rather than elaborate to just remove the statement.


 * I'd like a little more background on the two gangs. Did they form as a result of Prohibition, or did they already exist in some form before that?  Were the gangs local, or branches of more widespread businesses?
 * Honestly I have not found any details on the gangs. My impression from what I have read is that gangs were a part of the landscape since the 19th century. These two gangs definitely existed before Prohibition though it is unclear exactly how significant they were before. I have no idea where to find more details in that regard.


 * What made the arrests "fortuitous"
 * I chose that word to be terse but apparently at the expense of clarity.


 * If you can find appropriate sourcing, it would be interesting to know how much of the annual tourism industry was a result of the vice businesses.
 * I'd love to find these kinds of details too. But I would have no idea where. Such info, of course, was never officially published. Membership at the major clubs from what I gather was a closely guarded secret. And the legitimate and illegitimate tourism was closely tied (people stayed at the hotels and visited the casinos). So it is not entirely easy to separate anyway.


 * Any more info on Al Capone and Albert Anastasia?
 * Have not found any. From what I gather they never tried that hard. It seems the Maceos made clear that it would be all out war if they tried to come in and they figured the location was too remote from their core areas to want to bother (I read in one source [forgot which] that Al Capone said something like "Texas is too far from Chicago").


 * definitely need citations for "San Antonio..
 * I did provide a source. Are you saying that the source isn't good enough or that each individual sentence needs to have that same source specified?


 * "some have argued that the city ..." do we have any particulars on who has argued this? This is really vague attribution for a pretty hefty statement.
 * I provided a reference. Are you suggesting that the author of the reference should be mentioned in the prose?


 * Are there any further details on the effect of gambling legalization in Nevada? Since Galveston was essentially allowing the gambling places to run free, I wonder how big the effect was.
 * Excellent question. I really would love to know more about that. Various sources talk about an influence and that some people moved operations there but I have seen no general analysis of the degree of influence. ANICO funded a lot of development there and was probed in connection to the national mafia which suggests there was a lot of connection.
 * On the second point, the fact that Galveston was allowing gambling to run free wasn't the issue. The state cops and the government still were always an issue. At by the end of WWII things were changing in Texas so the gambling operators were finding themselves under more scrutiny (they were getting away with things mostly but the threat of individual businesses being shut down was getting more serious). Having a legal place to operate gambling (and for customers to feel safe from the police) was a big deal no matter how "open" Galveston was.


 * Any info on why Fort Crockett was shut down? Was it related to the vice stuff in any way?
 * I assume the answer to the second question is yes since the time frames coincided. But I have not seen any sources that discuss the relationship specifically or even discuss the purported reason for the shut down.


 * I think the article might be organized a little awkwardly. It seems that End of an era and the Prohibition and the Maceos sections could be combined into a history section.
 * I started to organize it that way but it seemed to me more confusing to do it that way. That is, it seemed that either I should do the entire article as a strict chronology or else organize it as
 * What led up to the era
 * What the era was like
 * What happened at the end and afterward
 * In the "What the era was like" sections I didn't try to be chronological but rather topical. I can't see a way to combine the general discussion of Prohibition and "End of an era" as a section separate from everything else in a way that wouldn't make it less readable. Can you suggest a more specific article layout?


 * Thanks so much! --Mcorazao (talk)

end of copied comments


 * Sorry if I jump around here!
 * References
 * I was confused by Cartwright's two entries. You are correct that page numbers are not absolutely necessary in the magazine (although they are helpful).
 * Generally, a citation should be placed at the end of the last sentence that it is used for, at the end of a paragraph (if it covers the entire paragraph/section of paragraph since last citation, and it continues on to the next paragraph), or at the end of a sentence that contains a quotation. So if a paragraph has 5 sentences, and sentences 1 and 2 come from source A, with sentence 1 being a quotation, and the last three are all taken from source B, I would expect to see citations after sentence 1, after sentence 2 (even though this means two sentences in a row have the same citation), and after sentence 5.
 * Background
 * I don't know a lot about Galveston history, so I'm not sure what details might ought to be added. I did think it odd that Lafitte was mentioned where it was.  My ideal would probably be to start with Lafitte and describe the relative lawlessness of the time (might also note that James Long (filibuster) also set up camp there), then briefly discuss the actual founding of the city and provide a few details on its independent nature and growth as a major Texas city.  I think the Galveston newspaper was pretty influential in the very late 19th century.... Without having done a lot of research on the topic, I can't quite pinpoint what might be missing.
 * Immigration - perhaps a sentence on why Galveston was such a nice draw - was it the fact that a lot of ships put in to the port and people were tired of travelling so just stayed? Did the city have a particularly welcoming culture - perhaps because the hurricane aftereffects had so decimated the population?  Was there already a reputation for breaking rules?
 * "some have argued that the city ..." do we have any particulars on who has argued this? This is really vague attribution for a pretty hefty statement - I think this should be attributed directly in the article.
 * As for the Nevada angle - have you checked any books on the rise of gambling there? There might be mentions of Galveston in those?
 * Organization - Perhaps an overall reorganization is not necessary, but merely some localized changes. For example, the Probition and the Maceos section mentions the vigilante group and 3 decades of running stuff - this is further detailed later in the article.  It might be best to remove this kind of information from what is essentially a "founding of..." section and leave it for a later section.
 * As for writing advice, I can point you to User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a. If you get dinged in a GA review or ever want to make a run at FAC, give me enough advance notice and I will copyedit for you.
 * Overall, great work. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Immigration - perhaps a sentence on why Galveston was such a nice draw - was it the fact that a lot of ships put in to the port and people were tired of travelling so just stayed? Did the city have a particularly welcoming culture - perhaps because the hurricane aftereffects had so decimated the population?  Was there already a reputation for breaking rules?
 * Well, I can mention that Galveston was the primary port of entry for the entire Western U.S. I'm not sure it is necessarily a case where immigrants necessarily were more likely to stay in Galveston but just that, since that was where they were arriving and it was one of the largest cities in the state many stayed. I have not seen a source explicitly detail motivations at this level of detail which is why I did not try to be more explicit (i.e. avoiding WP:OR). I'll see what I can do ...
 * As for the Nevada angle - have you checked any books on the rise of gambling there? There might be mentions of Galveston in those?
 * Yes, to some degree. Frankly Texas tends to get slighted a lot by many authors. So it is always hard to tell whether something about Texas is not mentioned because it wasn't that significant or the author simply doesn't want to mention Texas. :-) The short answer, though, is that so far it seems that books that talk extensively about Vegas don't say much of anything about Galveston.
 * As for writing advice, I can point you to User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a. If you get dinged in a GA review or ever want to make a run at FAC, give me enough advance notice and I will copyedit for you.
 * Thanks!
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have done some significant revisions, primarily adding and moving references, but also tweaking text in a number of spots (and even adding a couple of tidbits as I came across some details I thought worth including). Hopefully I have addressed your concerns. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions and questions (very minor)
I was impressed with your article. I didn't know about the "shady" past of Galveston. I do know it has been important to Texan history.

After I'm through with these comments, I'll go in an do some minor editing of your article. One edit I can think of right off the top of my head is that you used a comma after 'and' in most of your lists. Toward the end of the article you weren't as consistant; I added commas where you would have (even though my preference is to not have a comma in that type of case LOL - I haven't submitted an article for FA status, yet, so I don't know how that would be treated; my hunch is that they don't much care as long as the use is consistant).

I also removed over half of your 'however's and 'though's; usually they are fluff words.

- 'attracted' used twice in one sentence. For variety use 'hired' in one case? - Bernie's orchestra and introduced. . . - Should 'and' be 'which was'? - expand the ecomony rebounding tourism - insert the word 'by' between 'economy' and 'rebounding'? - Desert Inn) and Sam Maceo and had long been . . . - remove 'and'?    - spell out LGBT. this is the first time it is mentioned.
 * First Paragraph in lead - remove the word 'even'?
 * Fourth Paragraph in "Prohibition and the Maceos" - add the word 'the' between 'Eventually' and 'Maceos'?
 * First Paragraph in "Legitimate businesses"
 * Second Paragraph in "The Maceos move on"
 * Second Paragraph in "Aftermath"

Now unto the minor editing of your article.

Good luck in achieving the featured article status. Bettymnz4 (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks!
 * Responses, comments:
 * "shady" past - Texas overall has a much shadier past than most people realize (see History of vice in Texas). In reality I think a lot of Americans would be shocked at the things that went on all over the U.S. during the 19th century.
 * however's and though's - Yes, I seem to think differently from a lot of (most?) editors. When I read text and there are two statements next to each other that seem to contrast or contradict without any sort of qualifier indicating that a contrast should be expected, I usually find myself having to reread to make sure I didn't misread or that the author didn't mistype. So I tend to use them liberally because, to me, a lot of writers don't use them enough. But I'll bow to what the majority thinks.
 * Should 'and' be 'which was'? - Not sure which "and" you are referring to. I can't see a case where "which was" would make sense.
 * spell out LGBT - If you think it is really better. Since the expression is rather long and not really relevant I didn't want to take up a lot of space. I almost didn't include this comment but I thought some readers familiar with the modern event might consider the text misleading if I didn't at least acknowledge how the event has changed.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bernie's orchestra AND introduced.

The first time something is mentioned, it is spelled out completely so everyone knows what it means. If you'd be referring to LGBT again, then use the abbreviation. Sample: The Lesbian Gay Bisexual Troup (LGBT) was in last night's parade. The LGBT parade unit was in the middle of the parade. (I don't know what 'T' is for, obviously!! LOL)

Again, good luck and I hope you get plenty of helpful feedback. Bettymnz4 (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Review comments
As I am reading this closely and doing some copyedits, I will use this for questions / comments on things I am not sure about copyediting or changing otherwise. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Mcorazao (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling it a night, more to come, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the lead seems to contradict itself a bit in the timescale - the first sentence says The Free State of Galveston... during the first half of the 20th century. which seems to imply it ended by 1950 (first helf). However two sentences later it says This free-wheeling period reached its peak during the Prohibition and Depression eras but continued well past the end of World War II. - to me "well past the end of World War II" implies more than 5 years (1945 WW II ends, 1950 end of first half of 20th Century). Then the lead ends with By the 1950s, this era of Galveston's history had ended. which seems to fit better with the first half of the 20th Century.
 * That's a very literal interpretation but if you think it's a problem it can be rephrased. Would "early to mid 20th century" be better (I was trying to avoid wordiness in the lead sentence)? --Mcorazao (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like The Free State of Galveston (sometimes the "Republic of Galveston Island") was a whimsical name given to the island city of Galveston in the U.S. state of Texas during the early to mid 20th century. better - it is more consistent with the rest of the lead. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Mcorazao (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

More to come, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the Background section would flow better if it were in chronological order? The first paragraph is mostly 19th century and a bit on early 1900s. The second paragraph goes from the 1900 Hurricane to 1930. The next paragraph is back to 1911 (opening of the Hotel Galvez). Then the port paragraph is early 1900s, and the last paragraph is 1901 to roughly 1920. As it is the section is more thematically organized, which is OK too.
 * Hmmm, personally I am not a fan of forcing chronological discussions for shorter periods of time, except where the order of events is especially crucial and/or a source of confusion. I have found that trying to read a history where the author tries too hard to discuss things chronologically is often harder than a thematic description. Do you really think a chronology would be more useful? Perhaps a small timeline to the side would serve the purpose without reorganizing? --Mcorazao (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I might try an edit of it here - will also do some more copyedits on the rest. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free. Thanks! --Mcorazao (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the same section, there are two major hurricanes mentioned (1900 and 1915), but several references to "the hurricane" like Immediately after the hurricane, Galveston worked to revive itself as an entertainment center...
 * Good observation. The 1900 event was the more significant one but it needs to be made clear. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the rest of the article, I would read WP:ITALIC and make sure that the use of italicized text follows it.
 * I'll re-read. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Background (tweaked)
During the mid- to late-19th century, Galveston, on its island on the Gulf Coast, was the largest city in Texas. It had become an important national commercial center and one of the busiest seaports in the United States, as the Port of Galveston was able to capitalize on Texas' rapid rise in the cotton trade. Though nearby Houston was emerging as an important city in its own right, Galveston was the state's cultural and economic center at the time. Vices such as prostitution and gambling, which were common throughout Texas during the 19th century, continued to be tolerated to various degrees on the island in the early 1900s.

Galveston had been a major port of entry for Texas and the West during the 1800s, and a new wave of immigration came through the port in the early 1900s. In contrast to the heavily German immigration of the 19th century, the new arrivals in Galveston were Greeks, Italians, Russian Jews (part of the Galveston Movement), and others who came to settle in many parts of the country, including some who remained on the island itself. Of particular note are the Sicilian immigrants who formed a significant community in Galveston, as well as the nearby city of Brazoria.

The 1900 Galveston hurricane was an unparalleled disaster. According to some estimates 6,000 people died on the island, in addition to thousands more on the Gulf Coast and along the shores of the bay. Immediately after the hurricane, Galveston worked to revive itself as a port and an entertainment center, including the construction of tourist destinations such as the Hotel Galvez, which opened in 1911. In the same year, the Galveston–Houston Electric Railway opened and was recognized as the fastest interurban rail system in the country. By 1912, Galveston's port had become the second-leading exporter in the nation, behind New York.

In 1901, Texas' oil boom began, with oil wells and refineries constructed throughout the state. Galveston's direct role in this boom was minimal as investors avoided building pipelines and refineries on the island itself (though for a time oil was shipped through the island). Nevertheless, wealth brought on by the boom transformed nearby Houston, Texas City, Goose Creek (modern Baytown), and other communities. Houston in particular became home to a large community of wealthy businessmen and investors. Galveston became even more tourism-focused as the city sought to attract these nearby nouveau riche.

Nevertheless, after the 1900 hurricane and another in 1915, many avoided investing in the island. In the first two decades after the 1900 storm, the city's economy struggled to recover. The opening of the Houston Ship Channel in 1915 further challenged the port city. Houston and Texas City, as well as other ports, rapidly overtook Galveston as a leading port and commercial center; by 1930 map makers were showing Houston as the major city on the Texas coast, instead of Galveston. Cotton shipping, which Galveston had thoroughly dominated on a worldwide level, began migrating to other ports in Texas and on the West Coast.

Comments
What do you think of the Background section this way? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you have re-ordered the discussion to imply chronology, but your discussions are not really chronological. For example you moved the immigration discussion before the hurricane discussion but the most significant facet of that is the immigration that took place after the hurricane (in other words, one could argue you have the chronology reversed). Similarly the last two paragraphs you have still overlap entirely in terms of time period. Neither paragraph could be argued to be focused more on a period before the other. In any event, I am not saying the new organization is bad (have to re-read and think about it more) but I'm not sure it is accomplishing what you want. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it is not really chronological, although the start of each paragraph is sort of in chronological order and it goes from mid-18th century (first sentence) to 1930 (next to last sentence). It was more an attempt to see if it flowed better this way - leading port of the 18th and early 19th century and immigration, 1900 hurricane and efforts to rebuild, oil boom and its effect on Texas, and decline of the port. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Feedback:
 * "on its island on the Gulf Coast" - Rather an awkward clause. What is the purpose of inserting this? --Mcorazao (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Somehow the new ordering doesn't seem to flow. The themes seem more disjointed. Here's my perception of the two flows:
 * Original:
 * 19th-century economy and vice culture
 * 1900 hurricane transition point and decline of Galveston's traditional economy (1900 onward)
 * attempts to revive economy by conventional means (1900-1920s)
 * new immigrant groups changing the culture (1900-1920s)
 * oil boom creates economic opportunities (1920s-1930s).
 * Revised:
 * 19th-century economy and vice culture
 * new immigrant groups changing the culture (1900-1920s)
 * 1900 hurricane transition point and attempts to revive economy by conventional means (1900-1920s)
 * oil boom creates economic opportunities (1920s-1930s).
 * decline of Galveston's traditional economy (1900 onward)
 * Maybe it is just me. The transition from one stage to another seems less clear and it feels like where the discussion is headed is more vague. If you feel like this is better, though, I'll trust your judgement (after all, only one of us has achieved FA before).
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I had read the recent FAC and was trying to make clear in the background that Galveston is on an island. I have since re-read the lead and see that it is covered there.
 * As for the tweaked intro, I was trying to group things that began in the 19th century and continued into the 20th century in the first two paragraphs (important port, immigration) then show the hurricane of 1900 and its effects, then right after this (1901) the oil boom, which seems to have largely bypassed Galveston (except for efforts to attract the nouveau riche), then decline of Galveston's tradtional economy and rise of the surrounding region (Houston, etc.). My thought was to end with the decline and then focus on vice and tourism as the new economy.
 * There are several things in the summaries you used that are not explicitly in the paragraphs - might want to try and make them clearer. The oil boom only mentions 1901 explicitly and in the original mentions that the Galveston economy struggled to recover for the first two decades of the 20th century. The summary says 1920s - 1930s. The time scale for immigrant groups is also not as clear in the orginal, and it does not explicitly say that the new immigrants changed th culture. If you want I can just go through and make some more copyedits to the rest of the article. I am not tied to the tweaks, just thought it might be another way to tell the story. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll trust your judgement on the background. Obviously something needs to change. --Mcorazao (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The "On an island on the Gulf Coast" clause still comes off clunky to me, even in the second sentence. Perhaps you want something like
 * The island of Galveston, which lies on the Gulf of Mexico, held one of the first major settlements in the eastern part of what is now Texas. During the mid- to late-19th century, it became the largest city in the state.
 * I just added your sentences and tweaked the following one, thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The other thing that still troubles me is that there is no longer a logical transition from the background to the rest of the article. Normally I like to see that the last paragraph of a background section motivates the rest of the discussion. In other words, ideally I should be able to read the last paragraph of the background by itself and see that what came after was a natural consequence of what happened before.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, the old version ended with these two sentences: Galveston became even more tourism-focused as the city sought to attract these nearby nouveau riche. Still, in the first two decades after the storm, the city's economy struggled to recover.[14] which are now incorporated elsewhere in the Background section. How about adding a conlcuding sentence along the lines of As it lost business as a port and commercial center, the economy and culture of Galveston changed with a new emphasis on tourism, as well as gambling, prostitution, and other illegal activities. Not great, but does it give an idea? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That statement is misleading. It implies some things that are not really true:
 * That its port business had mostly died before the beginning of the Open Era.
 * That the switch to a higher emphasis on illegitimate enterprises was somehow planned by the city.
 * That large-scale vice activities were somewhat new on the island.
 * Apart from that the statement is sort of attempting to summarize the rest of the article rather than leading into the rest of the article (acting sort of as a second lead). It seems preferable to me simply to tell what was happening right before and what the motivating factors were for change so that it is obvious why the things discussed in the next section occurred. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. Do you have any ideas for a last sentence or two logically lead into the rest of the article? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ummm, well, I ordered things the way I did originally explicitly to make that flow. With the new ordering of the ideas I'm not sure how to address that (i.e. without just restating what has been moved into the previous paragraph). Again maybe it's just me. Obviously I don't know what the FA folks want ... --Mcorazao (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Background (Tweak 2)


The island of Galveston, which lies on the Gulf of Mexico, held one of the first major settlements in the eastern part of what is now Texas. During the mid- to late-19th century, it became the largest city in the state. Galveston was also an important national commercial center and one of the busiest seaports in the United States, as the Port of Galveston was able to capitalize on Texas' rapid rise in the cotton trade. Though nearby Houston was emerging as an important city in its own right, Galveston was the state's cultural and economic center at the time. Vices such as prostitution and gambling, which were common throughout Texas during the 19th century, continued to be tolerated to various degrees on the island in the early 1900s.

The 1900 Galveston hurricane was an unparalleled disaster. According to some estimates 6,000 people died on the island, in addition to thousands more on the Gulf Coast and along the shores of the bay. Immediately after the hurricane, Galveston worked to revive itself as a port and an entertainment center, including the construction of tourist destinations such as the Hotel Galvez, which opened in 1911. In the same year, the Galveston–Houston Electric Railway opened and became recognized as the fastest interurban rail system in the country. Galveston's port was also rebuilt quickly, and by 1912 had become the second-leading exporter in the nation, behind New York. Nevertheless, after the 1900 storm and another in 1915, many avoided investing in the island.

Galveston had been a major port of entry for Texas and the West during the 1800s, and a new wave immigration came through the port in the early 1900s. In contrast to the heavily German immigration of the 19th century, the new arrivals in Galveston were Greeks, Italians, Russian Jews (part of the Galveston Movement), and others who came to settle in many parts of the country, including some who remained on the island itself. Of particular note are the Sicilian immigrants who formed a significant community in Galveston, as well as the nearby city of Brazoria.

The opening of the Houston Ship Channel in 1915 further challenged the port city. Houston and Texas City, as well as other ports, rapidly overtook Galveston as a leading port and commercial center; by 1930 map makers were showing Houston as the major city on the Texas coast, instead of Galveston. Cotton shipping, which Galveston had thoroughly dominated on a worldwide level, began migrating to other ports in Texas and on the West Coast.

As Galveston's traditional economy declined, Texas' oil boom began in 1901, with oil wells and refineries constructed throughout the state. Galveston's direct role in this boom was minimal as investors avoided building pipelines and refineries on the island itself (though for a time oil was shipped through the island). Nevertheless, wealth brought on by the boom transformed nearby Houston, Texas City, Goose Creek (modern Baytown), and other communities. Houston in particular became home to a large community of wealthy businessmen and investors. Galveston became even more tourism-focused as the city sought to attract these nearby nouveau riche. Still, in the first two decades after the 1900 storm, the city's economy struggled to recover.

Comments on Tweak 2
OK, how is this? I tired to keep much more of your original flow, while still tweaking things a bit. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

PS Copyediting is usually difficult for me because I have not read the original sources. Hope this is OK and thanks for your patience. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, how can I complain when you change it to be more similar to what I had. ;-) This looks fine. Maybe I should keep quiet, let you copyedit, and then discuss when you're all done. I feel like I'm crimping your style.
 * BTW, from my perspective if you are unclear what to write for copyediting that suggests a failure in my writing (i.e. presumably if my writing were good then you would not need to look at the sources). --Mcorazao (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I swapped it into the article. The Maceo section is also done (I think). The way I see it, the original author has generally spent much more time on the article and knows the overall picture better. I tried moving things around and messed up the flow, as I did not know as well as you where the Background was heading. I will work on the next sections tomorrow - am sure there will be more questions. You write well, I just have some experience knowing things that raise eyebrows (as it were) at FAC. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

More comments

 * Are hotels part of the entertainment industry? Important non-entertainment businesses included insurance firms, hotels, banks, shipping firms, and commercial fishing enterprises.[8]
 * Judgement call. Hotels can serve entertainment and non-entertainment purposes. You can reorganize if you think it is better. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I left it in. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it is a medical school and three other schools and hospital complex today, what was it in the 1920s or Free State era? This sentence is just unclear to me The University of Texas Medical Branch maintained medical science as a stable sector on the island.[9]
 * Honestly I have not read details of UTMB in th 20s-40s. I simply view it as a medical school (which implies there had to be a hospital along with it) and I think it is sufficient to characterize it in that way for this article. That would imply both that there was always some amount of research happening and that it attracted some of the best doctors in the state. I thought trying to elaborate too much would be delving into details that were not relevant to the article's focus. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And for what it's worth the sources do indicate that UTMB was important to Galveston's not imploding completely when the Free State ended. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I changed it to The medical school and hospitals of the University of Texas Medical Branch were a stable sector on the island throughout the 20th century.[40] Is that OK? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * John Sealy Hospital actually pre-dates UTMB, as does the School of Nursing (1890). Both became part of the Medical Branch (then Medical Department) upon its establishment in 1891.  St. Mary's Hospital, the first hospital in Texas, also operated across the street from UTMB.  It was closed in 1996 and purchased by UTMB...and renamed Rebecca Sealy Hospital. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 22:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added the nursing school to the article. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I worry that we are getting too detailed. There are a million individual parts of the medical community, the insurance community, the banking community, etc. that remained on the island. The point I was making was simply that the medical school stayed and that anchored the medical establishment on the island. Not to insult nurses (my wife is one) but the way the nursing school and the hospitals are interjected seems to trivialize the rest of the discussion (c.f. if I tell you I have cancer and heart disease you would probably say "poor bastard". But if I tell you I have cancer, heart disease, athlete's foot, and bad breath you'd probably just look at me funny). --Mcorazao (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Conflict the article on the Pageant of Pulchritude says it started in 1926, this article says In 1920 the annual Pageant of Pulchritude beauty contest, part of "Splash Day", was started in Galveston by C.E. Barfield, ... Which is it? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, again, this is a question of how literally to take things. In typical histories the term Pageant of Pulchritude is used to refer to the contest since its beginnings in 1920. In reality, the contest was only given that name in 1926 when it was reorganized as an international contest. If you think it is important you can specify that the contest was originally called the Bathing Girl Revue and changed names in 1926. Seems like it would make the text in this article too detailed but you can be the judge. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the article to read In 1920 an annual beauty contest, named the Pageant of Pulchritude in 1926, was started in Galveston by C.E. Barfield, manager of a local amusement park owned by the Maceos.[42][43][44] The contest was part of an event known as "Splash Day", the kick-off of the summer tourist season each year, and became the first international beauty contest,... Probably would be good to add the earlier material to main pageant article. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why it is not called the "International Pageant of Pulchritude" in the article? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just saw that I hadnt responded to this. There was no special reason. It seems that the name was more often just abbreviated to "Pageant of Pulchritude" (or "Miss Universe") so I opted for being more terse. But I don't really care which is used in the article. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article needs to be consistent on little things. Free state is not in quotes in the lead or title or infobox, then is in quotes most everywhere else, but in at least one place is italicized (but not in quotes). Similarly the names of nightclubs / casinos are usually italicized (which I am not sure follows WP:ITALIC) but in some places they are not - see the caption "The Balinese Room, once the premier restaurant and casino of the wide-open era" - no italics for Balinese Room here, but wide-open era is italicized (in quotes in the lead). My preference is for less use of italics (though italicizing unusual words like rum row is OK under WP:ITALIC), but in any case the article needs to do things like this consistently. Ruhrfisch  <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually after re-reading WP:ITALICS I was thinking that at least the opening sentence should use italics for Free State. Presumably all the other instances should follow suit. I guess you are right about the places, though. I honestly don't understand the logic behind saying books and newspapers are italicized but businesses and venues are not. Seems to me they logically fall under the same umbrella. Anyway, I'll rework. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In some ways it seems as if the article uses italics instead of quatation marks - so Pageant of Pulchritude instead of "Pageant of Pulchritude". If that is the rationale, then WP:MOSQUOTE specifically says not to do that. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't understand the intent in the guidelines. WP:ITALICS says "Italics may also be used where, in the course of using a term in an article, that term is being defined, introduced or distinguished in meaning", which I would expect applies here. Anyway, I am removing those italics for now. Feel free to do with these as you wish. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not something that was mentioned at the FAC and would be easy to fix if someone objected, so feel free to go back to the italicized version if you want. Will do more next, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Does this sentence mean that Frank Sinatra and Phil Harris and others socialized on the island (as well as performing in clubs there)? High society in the city regularly attracted some of the biggest names in the entertainment business, from Frank Sinatra to Phil Harris.[2][25][61] Or does it just mean they performed in the city? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Both. I think in general the deal with these big name entertainers is that they'd be invited to some town to party with the understanding that they're ticket to a free vacation was to put on a couple of performances at this or that venue. --Mcorazao (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It used to be that images were not supposed to be left justified under anything less than a level two header, so the images under Vice businesses and Aftermath would not be allowed. I looked at the MOS on images and headers and layout and did not see this though. I also just made italics on Free State consistent throughout. The MOS on headers does say that headers should avoid repeating the article title if at all possible - would just "The end" or perhaps "End of the era" work instead of "The Free State ends"? Almost done with my copyedits, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I had not seen anything about not left-justifying images on lower-level headings. I can't think what the rationale for that would be. --Mcorazao (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It used to be in the MOS, I htink that it might have been a software problem somehow with browsers for the visually impaired. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I renamed the section. It doesn't seem to me that using "Free State" in this way is a violation of what was intended by that guideline, but if changing it gets it through FA, so be it. --Mcorazao (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, "The Free State ends" is OK. I changed it back.
 * I am done with the copyedit. I think it would help to send it through peer review before FAC. I also think the In popular culture section could be made part of Aftermath if needed. My final comment is that there are a number of places that could use dates if they are known. Mostly this is to replace words like now and recently. So if the year of the name change could be used instead of "today" in The city had numerous venues for the arts, including the State Theater (today the Grand Opera House), which ... that would help. Or what year did Fort Crockett or the brewery close? Or could years be added instead of "recent" in (though recent informal polls indicate this sentiment may be changing).[53][68] I have this watchlisted and have some advice for you talk page, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for all the hard work. --Mcorazao (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate to put it through formal peer review a third time (seems like it is unfair to keep using those resources on the very same article). I'll see if Karanacs has time to give it a once over. She's been promising ... --Mcorazao (talk)
 * The In popular culture discussion would seem out-of-place in Aftermath. I would be more inclined to simply remove it altogether if you think the section is problematic (there does seem to be a bias against such sections, probably because most sections are horribly written). --Mcorazao (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll add some more time context in those sections (though I haven't seen exact dates for all of those events). --Mcorazao (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help - if I made any mistakes or made things worse, feel free to revert / change / tweak.
 * Karanacs would be great - just as long as another pair of eyes looks at it (I have lost my critical distance).
 * I would leave the pop culture section, but if someone objects to it, I had thought it might fit in the Aftermath section. I owuld not change it unless someone strongly objects. I understand not all dates will be known, just thought if some could be added that would help, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The brewery closed in the 1981... I have present day pics of the brewery, hospitality suite and boiler rooms if anyone wants them. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 17:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the Texas Monthly article was a bit misleading in that regard. I took out the mention of Southern Select and replaced it with some other examples. Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Having both "always" and "ever-present" in the same sentence is needlessly redundant: Racist ideology was always an ever-present factor in the city, however, as evinced by the name of the group which ran the Mardi Gras, the Kotton Karnival Kids... Either "Racist ideology was always a factor in the city..." or "Racist ideology was an ever-present factor in the city..." Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion: Introducing the Maceos?
Question: To anybody monitoring the discussion, in the Prohibition and the Maceos I started by discussing Prohibition and the business/gang climate that had developed on the island as a result and then transitioned into how the Maceos fit in. To make clear to the reader what he/she was reading and why, I handled that transition by saying


 * It is in this context that the Maceo family enters history. The family had immigrated from Palermo, Sicily to Louisiana in 1901.

As a result edits from a few different authors this has evolved into


 * The Maceo family entered Galveston's history during this period. The family had immigrated from Palermo, Sicily, to Louisiana in 1901.

Not that my wording was the best but somehow the new wording seems (to me) to fall rather flat. Additionally the new wording implies that the Maceo family came to Galveston during Prohibition which is not true (hence the reason I said "context" instead of "period"). To me this statement is rather a key moment in the article so I kind of wanted the wording to be clear and engaging. Thoughts?

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I imagine I made (some of) the offending copyedits - sorry. I am not thrilled with the use of present tense in "It is in this context that the Maceo family enters history." and frankly I was not really sure what the sentence meant. How do you define "entering history"? Was the family not part of history until they came to the US or to Galveston? I assumed the history of Galveston was meant. Feel free to revert to your version, but I think I would prefer "It was in this context that the Maceo family entered history." since the Maceos did this in the early 1900s and the main brothers left and have since died. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No criticism implied. I think the current version evolved from 4 different people (including myself) editing it.
 * I use "enters history" in the euphamistic sense. That is to mean "begins making a significant enough impact on the world to be noteworthy". I have seen writers use either the present or past tense with this expression. Logically it seems the present tense is more correct, though. If you use the past tense then you are implying that they physically crossed some sort of time warp into history. The present tense implies a narrative transition (i.e. think of it as a character in a play coming onto the stage for the first time).
 * Anyway, I am in no way married to this euphamism. I was just wondering if there is a better way to transition into introducing the Maceos. Not sure ... --Mcorazao (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do see the transiiton in the original and can see it as present tense, but I also think that the original makes it sound like emigrating to Louisiana was the historic event (and not moving from Louisiana to Galveston and getting involved in bootlegging there). What if the context were made clearer in the first sentence, so perhaps something like It is in this context that the Maceo family, which would eventually control much of the illegal activities in Galveston, enters history. The family had immigrated from Palermo, Sicily to Louisiana in 1901. Feel fre to tweak - just tried to show from the start why they are important in this article. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, seems like a wordy transition. Maybe something like
 * It was at this time that a family named Maceo became important to Galveston's history. The family had immigrated from Palermo, Sicily to Louisiana in 1901.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me - It was at this time that the Maceo family became important to Galveston's history. The family had immigrated from Palermo, Sicily to Louisiana in 1901. is even less wordy ;-) Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats of FA status!! (I hope I read that notice correctly!)
Waaaaaaay to go. I could tell from the various talk pages, history of the page, etc., that you had put a tremendous amount of work in preparing this article. I am sooooooo pleased for you. Bettymnz4 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Pato
what is the section about Pato about? what relevance does it have to Galveston? Markb (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Free State of Galveston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091021044033/http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=623557678868710e&-session=TheDailyNews%3A4A0612E91631c3859FiIR3DFCB8A to http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=623557678868710e&-session=TheDailyNews%3A4A0612E91631c3859FiIR3DFCB8A
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716231544/http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=ca097dc8342ddcc5 to http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=ca097dc8342ddcc5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091021044033/http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=623557678868710e&-session=TheDailyNews%3A4A0612E91631c3859FiIR3DFCB8A to http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=623557678868710e&-session=TheDailyNews%3A4A0612E91631c3859FiIR3DFCB8A
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604091919/http://libraries.uta.edu/SpecColl/crose07/CR-Fall2007.pdf to http://libraries.uta.edu/SpecColl/crose07/CR-Fall2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Free State of Galveston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725201147/http://www.texasexes.org/alcalde/feature.asp?p=4536 to http://www.texasexes.org/alcalde/feature.asp?p=4536
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091205200221/http://www.humanitiestexas.org/newsroom/spotlights/balineseroom/index.php to http://www.humanitiestexas.org/newsroom/spotlights/balineseroom/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050316032230/http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?wcd=20323 to http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?wcd=20323
 * Added tag to http://www.galvestoncountydailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=d27eee42203528c9
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405135714/http://galvestondailynews.com/blog.lasso?blog=f862a0b2e6b99587&category=Galveston to http://galvestondailynews.com/blog.lasso?blog=f862a0b2e6b99587&category=Galveston
 * Added tag to http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?wcd=11066

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free State of Galveston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008073125/http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/03/crb97003.html to http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/03/crb97003.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)