Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World


 * 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 22:19, 11 April 2009.

To the People of Texas &amp; All Americans in the World

 * Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the most famous document in Texas history - given just the title, most native Texans can tell you when the letter was written, who wrote it, and give you the general gist of what it said. This is the first time I've attempted an article about a written work, and it is a little unusual because the letter is so very short, and its impact on history is greater than its impact on literature. Much thanks to Moni3 for a very helpful review; hopefully with her help I've adequately explained all the background information. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Technical Review
 * Disambiguation and external links check out with the respective link checker tools.
 * Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script)
 * The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated and appear in the ref section more than once, a ref name should be used instead.
 * Green (1988), p. 484.
 * Hardin (1994), p. 121.
 * Todish et al (1998), p. 40.
 * Green (1988), p. 492.
 * Green (1988), p. 498.
 * The following ref names are given to more than 1 ref when they should only name 1 ref.
 * green484
 * hardin121
 * todish40
 * todish42
 * green492
 * green498 --Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   15:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've double-checked the references section, and all references are appearing once and only once in that section. You may want to modify your script - both of these sets of "issues" are caused when a named ref has all details spelled out in an identical way more than once.  As the output is correct, there is no error or issue here. Karanacs (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't my script, but so whats the purpose of the ref name if you aren't going to use it properly such as --Best,   ₮ RU  C Ө   22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 File:David g burnet.jpg - This image has no source, date, or author for the original image. There is no way to verify its PD status. (I'm looking forward to reading the article later!) Awadewit (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, Awadewit. I know the image is public domain, I just can't quite track down the documentation at the moment.  I've replaced it in the article with File:David g burnett3.JPG, first published in the US in 1875.  Karanacs (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as reviewer. Well written article on a very specific document. --Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 *  Neutral  Support as reviewer.  Hey Karanacs.  Long time no see.  This is the first FAC I have reviewed in a while, and probably the most comprehensive review I have done.  I am being very nitpicky. I review the page as someone who knows little about the subject.  most of what I have said can probably be argued the other way. But over all, I like the page over all. Not too many changes can change my viewpoint of the page.


 * Texas State Library should have one wikilink -> Texas State Library and Archives Commission


 * I feel that that the text, or at least a quote of the document should be in or very close to the introduction.


 * "Shortly after, Travis wrote an open letter pleading for reinforcements." This sentence does not make it clear to me that this is the actual document that the article is about.  clarify.


 * Maybe the document should use quote templates like those seen on the United States Declaration of Independence page, rather than having the whole text of document.


 * page could be clearer about how the letter influenced David G. Burnet becoming president. Was there no one else who wanted to be president.  Was everyone scared.  or were there many people who wanted to be president, who were lousy, and because the document encouraged Burnet to stay, Texas had a great president. . ..


 * Not a deal breaker, but it would be nice to have a sentence or two on why the letter has is called this name as opposed to say "Travis's Alamo Statement".


 * I'd like to see an explicit statement of the why the letter is important in the introduction. After reading the article 2-3 times, I think you are saying that while the letter did not get reinforcements to the alamo to save the defenders, it roused enough would be reinforcements to form the core of Houston's army with in turn won the war.  Is that correct?


 * $85. Not a deal breaker, but is there anyway of finding an inflation adjusted number?


 * The sections, preservation and reception should be flipped.
 * Changed my mind on this. I feel there is a difference between the reception at the time of the war, and afterwords. Why not merge the second paragraph into of the reception section into earlier sections of the article.  Then rename the section academic reception, or post revolution reception. . . . . 05:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Background should have less about how the revolution started, and give more context about the revolution. An elaborated version of this sentence that I found in the reception section would be nice. "At the time Travis wrote the letter, Texas settlers were divided on whether they were fighting for independence or a return to a federalist government in Mexico. The confusion caused many settlers to remain at home rather than join the army."


 * Why is the quoted text in the distribution section not in Italics while the quoted text in the development section is.


 * Why does the See also section have "list of alamo defenders", but nothing else.


 * Not related to this FA page, why is there a battle of the alamo template at the bottom of the page, but not a texas revolution one?


 * Keep up the good work. Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review!! You've brought up some really insightful points. I've made the following changes:
 * Wikilinks to the library (thanks for finding that)
 * Removed the italics from the letter. That got snuck in since I nominated the article and I didn't notice it.
 * Added an inflation calculator
 * Added the quote "Victory or Death" into the lead. I also rearranged the lead a little so that the quote asserting its importance in Texas history is right at the front. I don't think I can get more explicit about the letter's importance.  Travis wrote lots of letters (although this is the only one well-remembered), so this particular one can't take sole credit for encouraging people to volunteer.  I had to make the description a little wishy-washy so that I wasn't going too far beyond the sources.
 * I rewrote one sentence to Shortly after, Travis wrote an open letter pleading for reinforcements from "the people of Texas & All Americans in the World". Hopefully that makes it more clear that we are talking about the subject of the article, and that the letter got its name from the salutation.
 * The background section has been expanded a bit, with pieces from the reception section added, as well as a little more.
 * I've rewritten the second paragraph of the reception second (and added a bit to the 3rd).
 * I added another two sentences about Burnet's election.
 * I'm not intending to make the following changes (or I'm answering your questions):
 * Quote templates rather than the whole document. The letter itself is very short, and I think that it should be included in its entirety.  Otherwise, I think it will be harder for people unfamiliar with the letter to understand some of the criticism (good and bad).  I chose not to include the postscripts in full (just small quotes in the text), because they aren't usually mentioned in the sources much.
 * I included the Alamo template because the letter is listed in that template as part of the battle. The Texas Revolution template lists only battles, and not the letter, so I didn't include that one.
 * It isn't that I am so much against an alamo template, as i am for a texas revolution template that has more than just battles. Sections could be, key people, major battles, major documents, declaration of independence, republic of texas. . . ? That however is not a problem with this page, but rather a suggestion for all the Texas Revolution pages. Oldag07 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I included the list of Alamo defenders in the See Also because the article specifically mentions that almost all of the defenders were killed (and that more defenders arrived in response to Travis's letters). I couldn't think of anything else extremely pertinent to put in the section, but I'm open to suggestions.
 * Since the alamo template is already up, i don't see why a see also section is even necessary. Oldag07 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to say about what the letter is called. It's given this name because that is how Travis addressed the letter; none of the sources explicitly state that, but I thought it was obvious.  Any ideas on how to make this more clear?
 * Not a big point for me Oldag07 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you very much. Karanacs (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Much improved. The only other thing I would do is for the inflation numbers, instead of using the term "today's dollars", I would use "20XX dollars", to be more specific. Changed my stance from neutral to support.  Gig em!Oldag07 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

 Leaning towards support Ooh - a historical document! How cool! This article was quite fascinating to read. In general, it is a clear explanation of the background leading up to the document's production and the document itself. I just have a few suggestions:


 * Texians aligned themselves with proponents of federalism, in opposition to a centralized government. - This is confusing, as I associate federalism with centralized government.


 * Four copies of the original broadsides are known to survive. One was placed for auction in 2004, where it was predicted to reach a price of over $250,000 - Do we know what price it actually sold for?


 * Unlike the rest of the article, the "Reception" section attributes almost every idea. How necessary is this? I found the writing in that section to be much more choppy because of this. Does the average reader need to know who said each of these quotes? Cannot more of these ideas be paraphrased and written in the same flowing style as the rest of the article?


 * I found the last paragraph, about Bush and the Ryder Cup, to be a facile ending. Is this really necessary? The paragraph almost suggests that the team won because Bush read this letter to them, which is, of course, poppycock.


 * It is clear to me which words and phrases in the the letter might lead one to view it as sentimental and melodramatic, but that might not be clear to everyone. Could you perhaps add a few sentences explicitly explaining that?

Thanks for writing this - it is both informative and enjoyable! Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Awadewit, I was hoping you'd have the time and interest to review this one. I've made the following changes:
 * Texians aligned themselves with proponents of federalism advocating a stronger role for state governments, in opposition to a centralized government that set most policies at the national level
 * I could not find any articles discussing the price the broadsheet actually brought.
 * I had to spend several days mulling the reception section in my head, and it's now almost completely rewritten. I think the new version is drastically better than the old one.  Thank you for prodding me in that direction, and please let me know if you have other ideas for improving it.  As part of this, I added an additional sentence about the melodramatic phrasing, but, while it is as clear to me as it is to you, I can't find a detailed analysis of which parts caused critics to label the letter that way.  For the most part, they just dismiss it as melodramatic without any detail.
 * I've also removed the Bush anecdote. That has always bothered me too, and I only included it as a link to how the letter may be popularly seen today.
 * Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to full support. The rewrite of the "Reception" section is particularly good. Thanks for taking the time to do that! Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Having been subjected to literally hundreds of Karanacs comments on my articles, I was relishing this opportunity to possibly load her up with some of my own. Unfortunately, I was at a loss for suggestions to improve upon this article, sorry Karanacs.  Nancy Heise    talk  02:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely appreciate the review, Nancy. If you are interested, I may run a few of my pending articles by you in the future so you'll have a chance to bombard me with issues to fix, too - that will give Moni a little break! Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I owe you about a year and a half's worth of reviewing so I would be very happy to help out. I thank you for all your help in the past which was not always well received or appreciated but is now.  Nancy Heise    talk  01:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.