Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French Texas


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:41, 15 March 2008.

French Texas


Self-nomination. This is an interesting period of time in Texas history, and I believe the article meets all FA Criteria. Karanacs (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is very close to featured status, the article seems very comprehensive and well-sourced. However, the prose needs to be gone over carefully. For example, if your browser has a find and highlight function, highlight each use of the word 'that' and see how many are simply redundant. Other than that, very well done. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that 'that' is the only thing which needs to be looked at, but it is often indicative of places where some trimming/polishing is well-advised. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done some copyediting myself and Awadewit has graciously agreed to do a copyedit this weekend. I'll post again when she is done.  Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done a copy edit. However, since verbosity is my besetting sin, I'm not sure I was the best person to choose. :) I did the best I could. Awadewit | talk  02:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Some points, none of which are sufficient to stop me supporting:
 * "Explorer René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle intended to found the colony" is confusing, since one naturally parses the comma as ending the name. I see from his article that he's often referred to as "Robert de La Salle"; could we just call him that, and let the linked article explain his full name?
 * Good point. I fixed this in the lead and in the body of the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I right in thinking that Francois should use a cedilla: "François"?
 * This is embarrassing - I'm Cajun and I should know better. I fixed all references. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you check that you're using words for numbers consistently? Per WP:MOSNUM numbers under ten are typically spelled out using words; above that you can choose as long as you're consistent.  The sentences starting "The ships carried almost 300 people" and "During the 58-day voyage" both mix words and numbers; MoS suggests consistency within a list.  "52 men in 5 canoes" is another example, later in the article.
 * I saw these and fixed them. Awadewit | talk  02:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Within several weeks of their departure" doesn't sound natural to me. I'd suggest being specific if you know the number of weeks, and just deleting "several" if you don't.
 * Changed to "Shortly after ", because I don't know the number of weeks. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "To fill the gaps left by desertion": you haven't mentioned desertion to this point; is it known how many people deserted? If so it would be good to give the number.
 * The sources don't mention a specific number of men, but I've rephrased the sentence to say To fill the gaps left after several men deserted because I think that makes more sense. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "led to an inability to find the Mississippi": I think this is a blurry way to phrase it; don't you mean that it led to them not finding the Mississippi, rather than an inability to find it? How about "Due to a combination of (etc.) the expedition failed to find the Mississippi"? Maybe that particular phrasing isn't right, but I think your current wording needs tweaking.
 * I've played with that for a while and not been happy. "failed to find" is better and the article has been changed. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Although Beaujeu delivered a message from La Salle requesting additional supplies, French authorities never responded": do Bruseth and Turner give any idea of the reasons for the French attitude? It seems callous to modern readers.  I assume it's because the cessation of hostilities with Spain meant it was not politically possible to aid the settlement, but it would be nice to say something parenthetical to that effect if the source supports it.
 * That particular doesn't make the link. Other sources have said that Louis didn't want to send help after the two countries made peace (that is cited earlier in the article), but didn't tie it directly to Beaujeu's message.  I wonder if it would be better to just remove the sentence about Beaujeu?  Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe another way to handle it would be to extend the sentence earlier in the article. Currently it reads "Shortly after their departure, France and Spain ceased hostilities, and Louis was no longer interested in sending La Salle further assistance."  How about changing that period to a semicolon and adding "the colonists twice sent requests for aid over the next two years but their requests were ignored".  Then you could drop the "Although" from "Although Beaujeu delivered".  Alternatively, leave the first sentence as it is but cite that source too in the second sentence, and say "but France, now at peace with Spain, never responded." Mike Christie (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article on prickly pear doesn't say anything about eating them causing fatalities -- do the sources you have elaborate on what caused the deaths?
 * The sources don't expand on that at all. The prickly pear article does say that if you don't peel a prickly pear fruit (called a tuna), then the little spines on the outside can lodge in your throat. My guess is that this could cause your throat to swell up and make you suffocate, but I don't have any real info that this is what happened here. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good enough. Mike Christie (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Spanish response" section jumps back in time relative to the narrative above it, and I think it should be clear in the opening sentence that this is the case. For example, you might change "La Salle's mission remained secret for a year, until" to something like "La Salle's mission had remained secret until 1686, the year after it had arrived.  In that year former expedition member" etc.
 * Very good point. I've fixed this. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike, those were excellent points and I think I've addressed them all. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder -- the MOSNUM issue is still there; I do think it should be fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Awadewit took care of that (and a big thank you to her!). Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support with a few questions:
 * Expedition section, second paragraph, the first sentence, I'm unclear why it was important that Spanish Florida be separated from New Spain? Did the French monarchy want that? I have dim memories of college history professors droning on about Spanish and French rivalries in the early modern era, but I will freely admit I get bored with anything past the Renaissance so I'm a bit fuzzy on when the French were happy with the Spanish and when they were mad. Perhaps a bit more context might help the lazy folks like me.
 * Just a personal preference, but I generally try to limit the numbers of footnotes per sentence to two unless more than that are strictly necessary. I saw three on the third sentence of the third paragraph of the expedition section. More than two looks like you're trying to overwhelm. Not enough to oppose, just something I noticed.
 * Very interesting read. Those were my only quibbles, and they are really more questions than anything. When are you going to bring Spanish Texas to FAC? Ealdgyth | Talk 19:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the paragraph on La Salle's proposal for the colony, and I think it makes much more sense now. I agree with you in general about the citations, but each of those three represents a different piece of information in the sentence, so I can't reduce any. I didn't see a way to reframe the sentence to eliminate one of them.

As for Spanish Texas, I haven't yet found a PD map of to represent its borders (because they were quite different than modern-day Texas) and I have zero ability to create maps myself. I'm holding off on bringing that article here until I can find one. Know any good mapmakers with free time? Karanacs (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Leaning towards support This is an interesting article on a forgotten place - this is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia unique! Well done. Although my knowledge of "Texas" history is not that good, this article certainly seems comprehensive in its treatment of a "failed settlement". Here are my suggestions for improvement:


 * Since archaeologists have been working on the excavation, I'm wondering if there are better sources than news stories to use for the "Excavation" section. Have they published in peer-reviewed journals about their findings yet, for example?
 * Sorry, I missed this question. I checked Google Scholar and didn't see any articles about the fort excavation.  There were several about the excavation of the Belle, but since I'm Nothing appeared in a search of the archives of the American Journal of Archaeology or Archaelogy Magazine either. Karanacs (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah well. Perhaps in a few years. :) Peer-reviewing is a slow process. Awadewit | talk  20:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you think about a map of the journey? See Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, for example. Kmusser did that fine work.
 * No one is entirely sure of where La Salle travelled when he was in Texas, nor of the exact route they took in the Gulf of Mexico. Historians have speculated that he travelled to certain areas based on accounts from some of the Native American tribes, but since exact paths are not known, I'd rather not speculate too much.  21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Too bad. Awadewit | talk  00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whenever possible, I would name the particular Native American tribe concerned. It is more precise.
 * There are a few instances where I knew the tribe name and did not include it, and that was because the previous sentence had explicitly mentioned the tribe. In the other instances of the term, I haven't found a definitive answer to which tribe.  Should I change the first set (the second sentence says Native American after the first sentence identifies the tribe)? Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's ok. I just wanted to make sure we always knew for sure. Awadewit | talk  00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea of allying with the native population had first been suggested five years earlier by Diego de Penalosa, a former governor of New Mexico who had fled to France after being targeted by the Spanish Inquisition. - This sentence is just kind of sitting there. Could you explain why the idea wasn't taken up at this earlier moment? It would help integrate this fact into the historical narrative.


 * I took this sentence out. I don't think it really adds to the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose we don't know how much money the expedition cost?
 * No, I haven't found any record of that. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alas. Awadewit | talk  00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Details of the voyage were kept secret so that Spain would not be aware of its purpose, and La Salle's naval commander, the Sieur de Beaujeu, resented the fact that La Salle would not confide in him. - Why are these two facts in the same sentence? Is there some connection I'm not seeing?
 * La Salle would not confide in the commander where they were going. I've made that more clear in the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Before they left, local sailors warned that the Gulf currents flowed east, and would carry the ships toward the Florida straits unless they corrected for it. - Before they left where, exactly?
 * clarified in the article Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Before they left, local sailors warned that the Gulf currents flowed east and would carry the ships toward the Florida straits unless they corrected for it. - "corrected" how, exactly? Could you explain the intricacies of the navigational issues a bit more?
 * Ack! Navigation is not my forte.  I'll check my sources and see if there are any details. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked in the source again, and this is what it says At French Santo Domingo, sailors more familiar with Gulf waters than were Spanish mariners had warned La Salle of the powerful eastward flow of Gulf currents toward the Florida Straits, a tug that unless counteracted would carry him off course. Accordingly, in sailing toward his destination, La Salle compensated for the current, in fact, overcompensated. I can find a book on navigational issues and write a sentence about compensating for currents, but would that be a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS?  That always confuses me. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is language of "powerful" and "tugging" that makes the quote seem clearer - it's easier to visualize what is happening. Perhaps no change is really needed - it just seemed a bit vague. Awadewit | talk  18:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed this to be more clear (hopefully): sailors warned that strong Gulf currents flowed east and would tug the ships toward the Florida straits unless they corrected for it


 * Beajeu, having fulfilled his mission in escorting the colonists - escorting them where? Across the ocean?
 * Yes, that's been clarified now.


 * The men found a source of salt nearby and constructed a community oven. - Living in the twenty-first century has deprived me of some knowledge. This is confusing. :)
 * I've added a wikilink to salt dome, and modified to "and then constructed". Does that help?  If not, what information do you think is missing?  (I think I've been reading too much about this time period, b/c this makes sense to me.) Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly sorry, but I still don't understand. How did they cook with the salt exactly? Awadewit | talk  00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I understand where you are coming from. The two things really didn't have that much to do with each other–they were just two things that the men did.  I've removed the sentence because it doesn't add much and does have potential for confusion. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In early June, La Salle summoned the rest of the colonists to the new settlement site. - summoned from where?
 * added "from the temporary campsite" Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The men befriended the native peoples, asking for information on the locations of the Spaniards and the Spanish mines, offering gifts, and telling stories that portrayed the Spanish as cruel and the French as benevolent. - What "native peoples"? This is quite vague and a little old-fashioned.
 * The books don't say which tribes these were. I've changed to "the local Native American tribes", but I'm not sure that is any better. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Two links are broken according to the tool above and when I tried to click on all of them from the article.

This was a pleasure to read. I did some copy editing as I was reading, but there was certainly very little to address on that front. This is a well-written article. Although I think the top-most map could be improved, the images are all well-chosen and are all in the public domain. Awadewit | talk  02:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The broken links are fixed now. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the status on Awadewit's "leaning"? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My last and most important question has been answered. I now happily support. Awadewit | talk  20:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Sandy gets to beat me with a wet noodle, http://www.thc.state.tx.us/lasalle/lasfslhghlites.html is a dead link. Mea culpa. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I also get to award 18 Brownie points for finding the link at archive.org :-) http://web.archive.org/web/20070830043211/http://www.thc.state.tx.us/lasalle/lasfslhghlites.html  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks!! Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support My concerns have been addressed. Note that I tweaked the sentence you revised per my earlier suggestion (the one about the anaerobic environment preserving the hull of the wrecked ship) to move the end punctuation outside the quote, since my rewrite truncated the original quote. Maralia (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support But the content far exceeds the subject-title. I would rename it to LaSalle expedition II or have that title redirect to Fort Saint Louis. Whatever the title is, the writing is still FA quality, however. Amerique dialectics 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of this, but it's a fair point. Perhaps having LaSalle expedition II redirect to Fort Saint Louis is the better of the two solutions.  Mike Christie (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing how the fort itself is only an artifact of the expedition and only incidentally the subject of its own article, I would think LaSalle expedition II would be the better title for it, but I am ok with a redirect. I would think an article titled "Fort Saint Louis" would be mostly about the physical site, as opposed to a sweeping depiction of colonial history. Amerique dialectics 17:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never heard this called "La Salle expedition II", so I'd hate to name the article that. I think the confusion is that Fort Saint Louis was the name of the colony, not just the name of the main building.  I could see renaming it to French Texas (currently a redirect to this article), as that would fit with the naming pattern for other periods of Texas history (Spanish Texas, Mexican Texas, etc.). Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a look around the net, and there doesn't seem to be a universally agreed-upon way of referring to the events of the 1684 expedition... I suppose the fact that LaSalle was looking for Louisiana might have something to do with it; his wiki-bio refers to the Louisiana_expeditions. To me, the best outcome might ultimately be to make this material part of LaSalle's biography, but completing that would be a longer project. In the meantime, I'm ok with parking this at Fort St. Louis if that's what people want. Amerique dialectics 00:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * French Texas would work, might I also suggest Fort Saint Louis colony? Ealdgyth | Talk 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * French Texas would be fine with me. Sounds catchy. Amerique dialectics 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved the article to French Texas. I'm waiting on Sandy's input before I make any changes to this FAC, which is why it still says Fort Saint Louis. Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Questions:
 * In "Excavation", "Other historians argued that the fort was..." - This leaves open the question of when the historians argued this: before, during or after Bolton. Perhaps, "Previous historians..." if before Bolton, or "Contemporary historians..." if during Bolton's time, or "Historians continued to argue..." if between Bolton and the excavation.
 * Is it correct to refer to the Native American people as "Native American" when speaking about 17th Century Texas? --maclean 04:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Other historians argued that before and after Bolton made his claim. I'm not sure what the correct word choice was in 17th century Texas; I suspect (without any real knowledge) that the French used the term sauvages, which I would not want to use here.  I could change it to "Indians" if that is more appropriate.  Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think "Indians" is more appropriate. If you look at the page for Indigenous peoples of the Americas, linked from this article, it explains how Columbus mistakenly referred to the Native Americans as "Indians". In the United States at least, use of "Indians" is on the decline, particularly as it also refers to those people who live in India. Awadewit | talk  01:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears both the Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Native Americans in the United States articles use "Native Americans" when referring to pre-USA days. Perhaps it is the correct usage. I also see Native American name controversy but it isn't very clear on retro-active use. I think naming the specific group would be a best practice. Alternative: "Indigenous"? --maclean 05:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the specific tribe is named whenever possible - I asked about that above - and "Native American" is used to avoid repetition. (Seventeenth-century terms are completely inappropriate - they are terms such as "savages" in English.) Awadewit | talk  18:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed your point above. -maclean 03:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Everything looks good. Well-written, appropriate sources. --maclean 03:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.