Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas Ranger Division

Texas Ranger Division
Partial self nom. This article was the Texan Collaboration of the Month in August, and it was turned from a stub into a good basic article by Katefan0, SaltyPig and other users. After massively rewriting and expanding it by myself, a thorough copyedit by Tony1 and Katefan0, a deep check of its images' status by Carnildo, a month at Peer Review, and still more work afterwards... I feel it's time to finally submit it for your consideration. Thanks for your attention! Shauri   smile!  17:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Object At 50 kb, (46 w/o extras), the article needs to be authored in summary form. Consider moving the =history= section to a dedicated article and add a summary of it here. There is also no need for so many subheadings. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've tried a different approach and removed the quasi-trivia lists, which added very little to the article, and that were created when we basically got started and needed topics to cover. The later development of the article has made the importance of such lists almost marginal. As of now, the full size is 46k (42 without extras), which is around the size of many FAs. Also, I've formatted some sections and reduced the number of subheadings. Hope this is enough. Thx for the input, Nichalp! Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  18:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * summary style has the reasons why the article should be written as a summary. 42 is still on the higher side. This article has the potential to be summarised further. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I have nothing against a large article. In fact, I think that many articles suffer from limitations on size, which I experienced when I wrote large parts of the article Norse mythology. This is not a paper encyclopedia :-).--Wiglaf 18:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read summary style. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with what SoLando says below. I disagree that article length should be an argument against FA status, and especially if there are already FA articles of equal length. Moreover, the summary style is a proposed guideline.--Wiglaf 05:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you read the rationale behind the summary style? I've always objected to a long article which can be clearly summarised. I have no problems with an article size = 40kb if it is written in summary style. For example, take a look at Economy of India. Although sections are neatly summarised, the article by its very nature has to include a plethora of subjects, and so is large. And, I welcome you to FAC. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But in this article, the history is so central. Summarizing the history of the Texas Rangers and moving the bulk of the history to a separate article would be like removing a central part of what makes them what they are. It would be like taking the meat out of the sandwich. It would be nice making my own FACs, but that will have to wait a few months until I have finished my dissertation.--Wiglaf 07:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're looking at it from a wrong angle. Think of it as removing the bones out of the meat. :) I've already mentioned what has to be done on Shauri's page.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but the analogy escapes me. Likewise it escapes me why this excellent article absolutely has to be rejected because of a few kb.--Wiglaf 19:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Its not the raw kb that I'm looking at. I'm looking for a summary. Unfortunately most newbies get confused between this. If the article size exceeds 30kb start looking at summary options (30 w/0 extras such as referencs interwiki etc). Three or four kb here and there do not make so much of a difference. Shauri asked me if I would support if the article was at 37 kb, I told her I'll support if the history is written as a summary, kb size not the major issue. In other words, move the details from here to a new history article and provide an overview of the history. Since I have summarised many article in the past, I can tell whether or not an an article needs a summary. You'll get it once you start getting articles featured. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to pile this all on you, but I think that covered every objection I could make, so if this is addressed. I'm sure to support. Good luck! - Mgm|(talk) 21:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object for now. I don't have anything against long articles, but after a thourough copyedit, I found some minor, but important points that need clearing up.
 * While the second paragraph states the Rangers are a North American organization, nowhere is it mentioned they work in the United States. It may seem obvious to most people, but you can't assume anything. If I knew where it would fit best, I'd have done it myself, but I'm not sure.
 * The leads says it's an agency "with statewide jurisdiction based in Austin, Texas", which I believed to be sufficient; but as you say, one can't assume anything, and thus I've added "in the United States" to that line.
 * The lead doesn't mention the famous cases the rangers handled.
 * I intended the lead to be a summary, since they are developed in the body of the article; but I like the sugestion, so I've just added the information to the lead.
 * It's not really actionable, but the lead image doesn't work for me. Any alternatives?
 * If you forgive me, Mgm, the matter is extremely subjective. Nearly "anything" could go here, from a badge to an old picture. The image is intended to show the presence of the TRs in modern Texans' mind. Please observe that this huge statue is located right outside the entrance to the Texas State Capitol. Such a symbolism is notable, and I wanted to give a first image that was detached from a particular period of time.
 * I really like this explanation. And I really, really like the picture - of course, I did suggest we use it, so I'm biased.  Johntex\talk 00:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The early history sections has a lot of the years and dates seperated making it hard to wikify both so the user preferences can kick in.
 * I've just addressed this throughout the entire article.
 * I've fixed them, but 1950s points to the article 1950, 1950s is a different article . Please take care when wikifying.
 * Done as well.
 * In the "Mexican American War" section it is said Sam Houston increased the numbers of Rangers when he was reelected because he saw their efficiency. Why would he, when he previously disbanded part of the forces because he felt peaceful coexistence with Indians was the way to go?
 * Because there were tribes that didn't want peace; but mostly, to repel Mexican invasions, as it is mentioned in the very same paragraph. Also, he didn't had disbanded them previously; he merely didn't give the Rangers the military role that Lamar did.
 * Horseback riding is occasionally mentioned in the article, and it's clear it was done from the start, but it doesn't say if Horses were out of the budget during the depression or how many Rangers still have horses available today.
 * As for the first point, I added a small line to the Depression paragraphs, stating that they had to used their own personal horses (sourced in the Handbook of Texas) as means of transportation. In fact, Rangers had always needed to supply their own mounts until the 20th century. As to the second point, well, they still have horses at their disposal if needed, and I guess it could be added, but... do you really think this information is suited for the article? When discussing the history of the agency within the broader history of Texas, and addressing political, military and criminal issues, I feel that going into this sort of details it's a bit like beating around the bush imho...
 * The words "seceded" and "apocryphal" need to be changed or explained.
 * Really? I never imagined they should, since both words aren't that difficult to understand and, imho, they are clear in the given context. Why do you think that, Mgm?
 * I wikified apocryphal so anyone who doesn't know what it means will get sent to apocryphal. Johntex\talk 00:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I wikified seceded. Johntex\talk 00:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * McNelly had a knack for disobeying orders? What is the source for this?
 * The same one for the line that preceeds it, which is under the footnotes section. An "ibid" note can't hurt, tho, so I just added it.
 * The bit about partisans in the 20th century section needs a source too.
 * Same as above. Source added.
 * The 20th century section has a bit where the word "worse" is used twice in quick succession. Could the first be clarified and changed?
 * Done, I rephrased the paragraph, within the strict limits of the meaning intended by the source.
 * Legislature was passed on March 31. What year was that?
 * The reason why the year wasn't cited is because it was the last mentioned year. Solved, anyway.
 * The car image is nice, but its use is not mentioned in the article. The article could use expansion on the mode of transportation for Rangers over the years (not only during the depression)
 * I added a mention to the time when the automobile was officially adopted by the agency; but as I said above, I feel that (although it is certainly interesting, and I have sources to address it) a further detailed expansion on the mode of transportation for Rangers over the years is not of primary importance within the limits of this article.
 * Source needed: Hardin had an affair with his killer's wife.
 * Source added, and also some precisions to these facts.
 * Bonnie and Clyde section: May 21 of what year?
 * Same as above, solved.
 * "Most Rangers also preferred to wear broader-brimmed sombreros as opposed to cowboy hats". Can someone put a time stamp on this?
 * Extremely difficult to do with precision, but a time window can be established based on pictorial evidence found at different sources (especially one of the External Links), and I just added it.
 * I'm also missing a mention of Walker, Texas Ranger and Rangers in general in pop culture. Are they portrayed realistically?
 * Well, this serves to prove that one can't please everybody! I've just re-added mentions in Popular Culture at your request.
 * As I just told you, there's nothing to apollogize for, Mgm :) I'll adress the remaining points right away. Hugs, Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  22:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, my dear Mgm. Please let me know your thoughts. Hugs, Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  23:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Support, thourough and well-sourced. My beef with the image is the angle it's taken from. I didn't notice the building behind it and the image doesn't show off its impressiveness, but that's really a tecnicality. - Mgm|(talk) 20:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object too long. Needs to use summary style. Borisblue 23:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support A very informative, comprehensive article. Article size of 42 to 49 kilobytes (to me) should be acceptable; many featured articles are of an equal (even larger) size, so I hope that objection won't determine whether this article receives its (deserved) FA status or not. If it does have to be reduced in size, I'd prefer the "High-profile busts" section being made into a small summary, with the main text being moved into something like "Prominent arrests made by the Texas Ranger Division" (that title seems a bit awkward. Sorry!). The "Popular culture" section could be moved into another article, too - it wouldn't realy have a noticeable affect on the article size, though. SoLando (Talk) 03:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read the above as to why I have objected. Size of any two articles cannot be compared. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object I found the article very instructive. However, I am concerned that there seems to be a general exceedingly positive tone. Ex: today the Texas Rangers Division is generally regarded as one of the most efficient law enforcement agencies in the world &mdash; regarded by whom? I strongly doubt that law-enforcement forces around the world know about the Texas Rangers (though now, obviously, many have heard about it from Walker, Texas Ranger, but one cannot base oneself on fiction to judge), or that they have voted upon it. Similarly, while there has been some limited criticism on 19th century brutality, there does not seem to be any kind of discussion of modern issues. David.Monniaux 08:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)<
 * David, I see that you have chosen to ignore the improvements that have been done to meet your demands. Shauri left you polite message about this, which you chose to ignore according to your activity afterwards It is consequently obvious that you are no longer taking part in the discussion, and there is little use for your comment here anymore. I am consequently forced to strike it.--Wiglaf 22:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My dear Wiglaf, let's just let David answer my comment. I'm confident he'll reply in due time. Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  23:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 2
 * Done (totally forgot about it). By the way, you are not supposed to edit other people's comments yourself, even if you decide that their criticisms are unwarranted. David.Monniaux 06:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The striking had more to do with the fact that you seemed to have disappeared in spite of Shauri's kind request for a new comment. An oppose vote serves no purpose if the voter does not take part in discussing the improvements.--Wiglaf 10:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the positive criticism, David. As I see, you have two concerns: phrases like the one you point (please note where else at the article you find "excesively possitive tone", and I'll gladly address it). As for "today the Texas Rangers Division is generally regarded as one of the most efficient law enforcement agencies in the world", the answer is, by other law enforcement agencies, and I can source that. To your concern: "I strongly doubt that law-enforcement forces around the world know about the Texas Rangers", I must note that unfortunately, you're wrong. The fame of the TRs troughout the world is firmly established, and as an example, I wish to offer you an extremely illustrative example here. If the sole idea that they would be facing the TRs caused such unrest through the III Reich that the German Ministery of Propaganda had to openly dismiss the rumor, it speaks of the widespread fame that the TRs have throughout the world. I also don't consider that the criticism of brutality is "limited"; nearly all arguments regarding the issue have been included without going in particular detail, something that I deemed unnecesary for size purposes. I invite you to check the vast majority of webpages (even books) on the subject; you'll see that criticism is absent, unlike here. There also isn't any kind of discussion on modern issues like these, simply because there are none to the best of my knowledge; and if you happen to find information that points otherwise, I'd be happy if you could bring it to my attention here so I can include it. Thanks again, Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  13:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In any case, just to solve the issue for good, I've rephrased the line regarding their fame as an effective agency, and sourced it. Shauri
 * I'm somewhat concerned that you use as "reference" some Web site that is obviously a tribute to the Texas Rangers. Apart from one anecdotal example, we see nothing. I can attest to you that hardly anybody in France had ever heard of Texas Rangers before the Walker TV-show appeared. David.Monniaux 17:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, my dear David, if you worked on a law enforcement agency, perhaps you would! But in any case (as I just mentioned above) I removed already that phrase and simply mentioned that "they have intervened on several thousand cases with a high level of effectiveness", sourced "not" on a tribute page but on the Handbook of Texas, a reputed online source by the University of Texas at Austin. I believe this settles the matter. I merely used the example above for illustrative purposes at this talk, not at the article itself. Thanks! Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  19:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * At the base of the statue currently shown as the lead photo in the article, there is a quote by Teddy Roosevelt something to the effect of feeling secure anytime he had the Texas Rangers guarding his flank. Unfortunatelly, I am not within easy driving distance of the statue in order to get the wording correct, and I cannot find an on-line reference to it. Johntex\talk 00:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for addressing my concerns. However, there exists, I think, still a few phrases that should (in my humble opinion) be phrased otherwise. Take, for instance, such as taking part in summary executions and confessions induced by extreme means. What does "summary execution" mean? Is it the same as what we have at summary execution, or was it lynching? (And then, why not include wikilinks?) What are confessions induced by extreme means? If you mean torture, say so.
 * Let's call a spade a spade and use plain-spoken language. David.Monniaux 08:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, David, and your input is welcome to introduce tweaking into any phrases you believe necessary. The one you point out has been rephrased within the limits of the facts that are presented by the source. Again, thanks for your positive contribution. Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  13:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy with the current formulation. David.Monniaux 08:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Object There are lots of bizarre wording here and there: "At the beginning of the 20th century, Texas' frontiers had become more civilized", "the Texas Rangers Division is generally regarded as one of the most efficient law enforcement agencies in the world" (why, how, by whom, for doing what ? Citation ?). Issues of racism seem mainly addressed a contrario ("The agency is also fully integrated with modern Texan ethnic groups...") or in what could be seen as appreciative folklore stories ("Los Diablos Tejanos"), which raise more questions than they solve, in my reading. The history part is very detailed, but this makes it overly long, and some issues (such as racism) are not discussed from a perspective. Also the whole article is organised in a way which makes me think more of a collection of things put on top of each other than of one coherent article. Rama 08:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, try to be more polite when you chose your wordings. People may take offense by words such as bizarre.--Wiglaf 11:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Humm, with all due respect, Rama, I've read your objection thrice, and I still can't quite understand most of what you expect. Let me try and analyze what I believe you object:
 * "Bizarre" wording (?) "Civilized" is bizarre? Again, with all respect, I hardly think the same. Perhaps you could care to clarify what you mean? I guess I understand what you mean, from what Johntex says; he has already addressed this for me.
 * That other phrase may be a little unfortunate, but it's a quote, and nothing of my own making. As I told David, I'll gladly source it right away.
 * Solved, as I just replied at David's objection.
 * Racism is not discussed from a "perspective"? From which "perspective"? Addressed "a contrario"? If you feel the article fails in its NPOV, then I suggest that you read my above comment to David, and invite you to search for other sources that address the matter in a more neutral way. It is said that it is fully integrated because, as of today, hardly any issues of racism (if any at all) have been linked to the agency, unlike its past, where it is deeply discussed, sourced, and imho addressed with full seriousness. It appears as if you were focusing from a wrong view. Let's see in a very simplified way: they "were" anti-Mexican and anti-Indian at some points of its history, but they are no longer now, at least not as an organization (impossible to tell what each Ranger personally thinks), thus it is fully integrated today and to prove that, it has several Latino and African American among its members. What's so unclear with that? Again, care to explain exactly what you mean?
 * "or in what could be seen as appreciative folklore stories ("Los Diablos Tejanos"), which raise more questions than they solve, in my reading." "Appreciative"? With all due respect, you're the first person I ever find that considers it an "appreciative" tale. It is one of respect obtained by fear, and as it is said at the article, they earned it "ruthlessly". "that" is what is inteded to show with this quote: their fame, not their "appreciation". Once again, please explain what questions this matter raises you, as I find your objection here extremely sui generis.
 * As for the organization of the article, it tries to cover all topics related to the subject, like famous anecdotes, uniform, etc. Again, you're the fist person ever to raise this point. It is meant to be a "comprehensive" article on the subject, unlike the vast majority of existing sources. Perhaps you could suggest a different organization?
 * If you allow me to quote you, my dear Rama, your objections raise more questions than they solve. I apollogize for the hasty words, honestly. Still, I would really appreciate a bit more in depth analysis to address your concerns. Rest assured I'll do my best to solve them. Thank you! Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  13:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am guessing the objection to the "bizzare" wording is asking whether frontiers can be civilized. We might want to replace "civilized" with "settled". Johntex\talk 20:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that the issue here is that words such as "civilized" are inherently POV, i.e. they express a moral judgment on what is and what isn't civilization. For instance, I'm ready to believe that the Native Americans considered themselves "civilized" and considered that the settlers were barbarians at their gates, stealing their land, and pillaging and raping their villages. I thus would prefer that such words were replaced by factual phrases, alluding for instance to the absence of settlements of people of European origin. David.Monniaux 07:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the editors of the article had that specific sense of civilized in mind when they used the word. In this context, I interpret civilized as the more overarching sense of "the state of having brought a well-organized Western institutional culture to the area", which is in fact what happened. I am positive that civilized is here contrasted to the settler culture that preceded it, and not to the Amerindian culture.--Wiglaf 07:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's correct, Wiglaf; the meaning intended was exactly the one you point out. The issue was already been clarified by Johntex, however, so I hope this particular point is solved. Shauri  [[Image:Heart.gif|11px]]  smile!  13:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a general problem with Texas Ranger Division; it is overall a good article and an interesting one, but I would not nominate it for Featured article in its present state; my main point of criticism is that it tends to be an accumulation of very detailed and picturesque anecdotes, lacking what I would expect of an encyclopedic distance. For instance, Texas_Ranger_Division is so detailed that in my opinion, it stops being informative (on the general subject of the Texas Rangers) and starts stuffing the reader with clichés.
 * Also, as I mentionned earlier, there are several instances of implied features: for instance, what does "The agency is also fully integrated with modern Texan ethnic groups, counting numerous officers of Hispanic and African American origin" suggest ? That the only mention of a racial discrimination is the a contrario allusion to the fact that it is now ended is disturbing to me.
 * The article is mined with similar details which sacrify historic distance and critic understanding to folkloric details and praises. These are certainly unconscious, and I do not doubt your good faith, but I think that there is a very regional POV (Texan subject discribed by Texans forthe entertainment for other Texans) which makes this article look much more like a fan site than a critical, encyclopedic article.
 * Lots of details can't save a lack of general vision. I know that it is often what happens at first; I did the same for UNPROFOR. But I know that UNPROFOR needs lots of work, and I'd never suggest it as a featured article in its present state.
 * Besides, I find it particularly peculiar that some people should entitle themselves with the right to decide whether or not objections of other users still stand. Rama 22:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is even more peculiar when oppose votes are left and the voter is to be seen no more. This is a discussion page, where we discuss how to improve the article for FA status, not a place where people appear to have thrown in an oppose vote and run away. Moreover, Shauri's kind request for a comment was ignored until I dealt with it (a coincidence?).--Wiglaf 10:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Big Texas-sized SUPPORT! This article is obviously the product of a lot of time and hard work and is clearly and interestingly written and throughly researched. Whenever someone says something is "too long" that is usually a sure sign they did'nt bother to really read it. Why are you complaining about a mere 50k length, unless you are on a 1200 baud modem? :). Still others would have parts of it lengthened for the sake of "Political correctness", which most of the time means Historical Incorrectness and leads to Political Revisionism. My hats off to Shauri for sticking to her guns. This being said, there are some minor, valid criticisms. A few phrases which might need some tweaking or rewording, a date or two (such as the Bonnie & Clyde shootout) which need filling in. But these are easily corrected and no reason to seriously oppose this fine work of historical narrative.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Great comments, Ghost!--Wiglaf 20:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Ghost that the length of this article is not a problem. I also think the article strikes the right tone with regards to rasism accusations, etc.  I'll try to help fix a few of the valid but minor suggestions/criticisms about word choices, etc, in order to make the article even better, but I think it is FA material already as it is. Johntex\talk 20:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support—Although I did work over the first two-thirds of the text a month ago, I feel distant enough from it to vote. I'm in the process of going through it again to make minor improvements. Tony 06:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: very instructive, some good recent edits, size is not, IMHO, a valid objection. This would be very far from being the longest FA. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)