Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juan Davis Bradburn


 * 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 by SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009.

Juan Davis Bradburn

 * Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk)

This article is about the most hated man in Texas in the early 1830s. Bradburn was a Mexican military officer who was most talented at ticking off everyone he encountered. That trait led directly to the first armed encounter between Texas colonists and Mexican troops, and indirectly to the Texas Revolution. There has been only one full biography written about him, although he is mentioned in varying degrees of detail in pretty much every book on the Texas Revolution. The author of that biography is considered the expert on Bradburn, and much of the works I consulted were really just regurgitating her findings in new words. Therefore, sections referring to his life outside Texas tend to rely on only one source, while those discussing his actions in Texas have more sources available. Thanks for reading! Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "Bradburn likely first entered Mexico" This seemed puzzling until I read below about his whereabouts before. Perhaps "Born in Virginia, Bradburn likely first entered Mexico"?
 * "Americans and other foreigners must surrender at discretion." Tense.
 * "Bradburn soon joined the forces", "Iturbide soon defected from the Spanish army" Do we know when? Budding Journalist 02:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the first two issues - thank you for catching them :) I couldn't find an estimated date for when he joined Guerrero. The sources on Bradburn don't say exactly when Iturbide defected either.  I could go find a book on Iturbide, but I didn't think it was that critical - the date range was fairly narrow, as Bradburn joined him in Dec 1820 and by August 1821 Mexico was independent. If you think that date would really help understanding of the article, let me know and I can go search for an Iturbide book. Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, made a few minor changes but looks good. One thing: Is "rumors abounded" proper usage? It sounds odd to me, and I've not seen it used that way. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a relatively common phrasing (19 hits in last month on Google news for "rumors abounded"; 69 for "rumors abound" ). Everything else I came up with sounded more awkward to me, but I'll happily change it if someone has a better phrase. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not important, I was just curious. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments I made some very minor copyediting tweaks, and have a few questions: It's a shame there are no images of him. Seems like political cartoonists would have had a field day with him. Maralia (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "His unit occupied New Orleans from January 24 through March 11." - why 'occupied'? weren't they defending it?
 * "Bradburn intervened in Guerrero's orders at least once, refusing to allow the execution of captured Spanish officers." - 'intervened in...orders' doesn't quite parse.
 * "She was the first Marqise de Ciria and 15th Marshal of Castilla" - Indulge me for a minute; I'm ignorant, but confused here. I presume Marqise is a typo for Marquise (which would probably be better as the Spanish 'Marquesa'), but it seems unlikely that a Mexican woman would be the first carrier of a hereditary title in Spain. I can't figure out what "Marshal of Castilla" could be, either. Do multiple sources attribute these titles to her? Most of what I could find online referred to her more vaguely as a 'titled heiress'.
 * Thanks for the review and the copyediting!
 * "Occupied" is the correct term - New Orleans was under martial law after the battle ended in January. I can give more info about the state of New Orleans at the time if needed.
 * I changed "intervened in" to "countermanded", which I think makes more sense.
 * The title thing puzzled me too. It appears that these titles originated in Mexico (despite the Castilla), but I couldn't find much info about them.  The only source that discussed his wife was the one I used, so I just used the titles as the source presented them.  I promised myself I'd take them out if they confused anyone else...so gone!

Karanacs (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed your reply until today. Everything resolved except the 'occupied' bit - per your suggestion, a brief addition about martial law being in effect after the battle would help 'occupied' make sense. One out-of-order comment RE below: 'entered the priesthood' is proper as is. Maralia (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I missed your comment when the ref stuff was added below. I've reworded the sentence to His unit arrived in New Orleans on January 24, just after the battle ended, and remained until martial law ended March 11. Karanacs (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all images check out fine. Jappalang (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments - Leaning towards support, but:
 * link brigadier general and possibly, Mexican Army
 * In note 2, could you specify who Henson is? I know he's in the references, but a name would be nice.
 * In section, Independent Mexico: Bradburn and his wife had one son, who entered the priesthood as a young man. entered priesthood.

Otherwise, it looks great!  Ceran  thor 02:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck, but are you going to resolve these?  Ceran  thor 16:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I missed your comments when the reftools stuff below was added. Henson is identified in Note 1 ("biographer Margaret Swett Henson"); I think it's redundant to reidentify her in note 2.  I don't see a need to link Mexican Army (the existing article does not mention the army's history), but I have now linked Brigadier General.  Thanks for your review! Karanacs (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ref comments -- Errors found with WP:REFTOOLS.
 * It's fine, support.  Ceran  thor 23:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Edmondson (2000), p. 145.	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Edmondson (2000), p. 151.	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Edmondson (2000), p. 155.	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Henson (1982), p. 105.	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Henson (1982), p. 124.	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * edmondson145	Multiple references are given the same name
 * edmondson151	Multiple references are given the same name
 * edmondson155	Multiple references are given the same name
 * henson105	Multiple references are given the same name
 * henson124	Multiple references are given the same name -- TRU  CO   22:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * None of these are actually errors. All refs are showing up as expected in the references section. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not literal errors, but are reference formatting problems that can be fixed. It also reduces cluttering of ref formatting if ref names are used instead and some refs have the same name even though they are not the exact same reference.-- TRU  CO   22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The refs with the same name are the exact same reference. Don't worry - I promise everything is working as intended. Karanacs (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess they are, but it seems redundant to write out and not use later on. But ref formatting is up to speed.-- TRU  CO   22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose  until fixed. The main problem, especially at the opening, is extreme density. It's very hard on the readers.
 * I had to work hard to understand this one: "briefly leading the American volunteers in Mexican revolutionary Francisco Javier Mina's army before joining fellow revolutionary Vicente Guerrero". De-clunk it, to start with, by substituting "in the army of Mexican revolutionary Francisco Javier Mina, before ...". It's uncertain whether Guerrero also ran an army—was it a rival army? Perhaps you can avoid raising these questions with a short additional phrase.
 * Again, it's hard for the reader who isn't familiar with all of these names; we shouldn't have to divert to the Iturbide link to see how he fitted into the picture; and that sentence packs so much in that I'm constipated just reading it --> "In late 1820, Bradburn defected to the Spanish army, but soon helped Agustín de Iturbide to unify the opposition to Spanish authority." Then, he "remained" in the Mexican army, but I lost where he joined it in the first place. My head is spinning.
 * "the state land commissioner"—which state? In Mexico? Most people won't realise that Mexico had a federal system (did it?).
 * "For much of the 19th century, Bradburn was seen as an incompetent tyrant." I hope that's fully verified in the body of the article. Was seen by ... historians? Politicians and/or commentators at the time? In the US or Mexico, or both? A little bit of detail would ease our discomfort, even if you leave the actual citation until later. Tony   (talk)  05:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tony, I've rewritten the lead almost entirely. I believe what is left hits the high points of Bradburn's life in a more generic way and doesn't require as much background information as the previous incarnation. I read over the body of the article again, and I think that all the (previously) potentially confusing points in the lead have adequate background information in the body now.  Thank you very much for your comments&mdash;I forget sometimes that not everyone has gone through Texas history in school. Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Yeah, I noticed that the lead was more problematic than the rest. Tony   (talk)  09:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - besides the above concerns, I was surprised that there was no image at the top. I guess there just aren't any? That is disappointing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no images. Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - all my concerns have been addressed. Slight oppose
 * "...Bradburn spent his early adulthood as a merchant..." seems awkward to me. Perhaps "...Bradburn's first career was a merchant."?
 * "... briefly leading the American volunteers in Mexican revolutionary Francisco Javier Mina's army before joining fellow revolutionary Vicente Guerrero." The "fellow" seems a bit odd to me, suggest just eliminating it.
 * "He earned the enmity of the local settlers for opposing the state land commissioner's efforts to give titles..." do you mean state or would "local" be better?
 * Your lead says "He likely first entered Mexico in 1812 as part of the Gutiérrez-Magee Expedition fighting Spanish control of Texas." which isn't quite as clear as your statement in the body about the 1812 expedition, if it's only likely, you need to make it clear that in the lead.
 * Ooh. WP:EGG (a pet peeve) "... British troops were preparing to invade New Orleans. Counter intuitive.
 * Explain briefly "filibuster"
 * "... and sent Bradburn as a courier to the United States." I think you mean "envoy" here more than courier.
 * "He reappeared in Mexican records in 1828..." I believe it's properly "reappears" since the records still exist.
 * When was immigration from the US to Texas allowed?
 * Egg again : "... tariff exemptions to the first colony established by..." Needs to be reworded.
 * "Bradburn's commander sent Austin a sharply-worded letter which, according to Henson,..." who is Henson? And why is his opinion important?
 * "In January 1832, Bradburn received a letter listing 10 men in his jurisdiction who wished to separate Texas from Mexico." Seems awkward to me. Perhaps "In January 1832, Bradburn received a letter listing 10 men in his jurisdiction who favored separating Texas from Mexico."
 * "Conviction on this charge would certainly lead to Travis's execution." the surrounding sentences are in past tense, suggest rewording to make this sentence also.
 * Need to explain what "Texian" is, not just link to it.
 * Egg again "... Santa Anna (now president of Mexico) was captured and all Mexican troops..."
 * Most of these are minor, but the WP:EGG ones need to be resolved before I can support. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ealdgyth, for being so picky :) I believe I've fixed all of your points except one.  I did not explain Texian.  This is the pre-Civil War century version of "Texan". Since most articles don't explain things like Texan, or Californian, I don't think we really need to do so here either (plus, I have no idea how to it rather than Texian–people who lived in Texas–... and that didn't sound right to me). Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments Very good article, definitely leaning towards support but would like to see the outstanding points above acknowledged, as well as a few of my own:
 * I notice the lack of a picture of the man has been commented upon; are there none even in the full-length biography on him?
 * Regardless of whether or not there are any pictures of him, I would've expected an infobox.
 * "...became the current town of Liberty, Texas" - I think this would be better expressed as "...later became Liberty, Texas" or something like that.
 * "With Bradburn's arrival, tariff collections began for the first time" - most things that begin are happening for the first time... ;-) Can we rephrase to lose the tautology? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments! I have fixed the two prose issues that you noted.  There are no images available of Bradburn, even in the biography.  Also, infoboxes are not required, and since there is no image and little else in the infobox parameters that would be relevant, I chose not to include them. Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I know infoboxes are not required but they're pretty ubiquitous on generals, and not all of them have pictures by any means. However, I won't oppose on that point - well done for very worthwhile article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to all the recent reviewers on the delayed response to their comments. I was off-wiki unexpectedly for a week due to computer and health issues; I hope I've now addressed all the issues. Thank you very much for your thoughtful reviews. Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.