Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lawrence Sullivan Ross

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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

[edit] Lawrence Sullivan Ross

This article is a comprehensive look at a former Texas Ranger, Confederate general, Texas governor, and president of Texas A&M University. The article is well-cited. Self-Nom. Karanacs 14:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. It's not only comprehensive, but also looks pleasant stylistically. I've got a few questions and comments before signing off, though.

• The article mentions that he completed a course of study at Baylor University without receiving a demerit. While I can infer that it's a pretty big deal, it's not stated outright in the article. Was he the only person to do this? Some context would be helpful.

• I haven't been able to find much else about the demerits, so I just removed that phrase.

• I removed the word "reserve" from a sentence talking about the Wichita Village fight. In the original context, it wasn't clear whether the sentence was talking about Indians held in reserve or Indians from the reserve.
• Is there any information about his recovery from the wounds he sustained at the Wichita Village fight?

• I added a little more about his recovery. I don't think there is anything more to find, though. Karanacs 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• There are a few scattered problems with comma usage and men/man agreement. If you'd like me to make a runthrough of the article, I'd be happy to do so.

• If you have the time and wouldn't mind looking through it, I would appreciate it. I think I am a little too close to the text and am reading what I think it ought to be rather than what it is right now. Karanacs 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• The last years of his tenure as governor are extremely unclear. When did he leave office to become president of Texas A&M? Were the positions held concurrently? The article isn't clear on that.

• I added in the date that he left office in the area where it talked about him not running for a 3rd term. If you think of a different place it should be, that's fine with me. Karanacs 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Once you address these problems, you'll have my full support. The article is really quite good, and I hope it successfully passes as a Featured Article. Good luck! JKBrooks85 23:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• In addation to the above, I have a few suggestions as well:
  • I am not entirely sure about this, But I am fairly certain that the first time a thing is cited the ciation should be given in its enterity. I am aware that the books you have cited for most of this are cited in the bibliography section, but they should also appear in the notes section as well.
• Other than that, it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment. I checked WP:Reference#Footnotes, and it says "Where an alphabetical list of references is provided, "short footnotes" may be used, where the footnotes contain only an author, perhaps title, and page number, without giving a full citation in the footnote itself." I think this should be okay in the article. Karanacs 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support Alright then, I guess I can accept that response. Everything still appears to be in good order. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support — An excellent, comprehensive, easily-understood article about an individual important in Texas history. Stylistically it looks very good, and it adheres to all points of Wikipedia style. I'm currently running through one final copyedit for grammar, but I'm finding very little to change. It's extremely well-written. JKBrooks85 22:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Some questions I had:
  • "The senior Lawrence Ross had been captured by Indians..." - can Indians be narrowed down to specific group or tribe?
    • No, I wasn't able to find any sources on which tribe it was. Karanacs 13:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ambiguous quoting:
    • His "aggressive tactics of carrying the war to the Comanche fireside (as it had long been carried to that of the white) ended charges of softness in dealing with the Indians."[28] - I'm assuming from the footnote to the book that this is the biographer Benner's summarization, and not the opinion of another in the book or a contemporary account. If so can you please clarify who is saying this. Like "According to his biographer, his "aggressive tactics of...""
      • The generally accepted way of quoting from a book is to use regular quotations if you are quoting the book, and double quotations "' '" if the book was quoting someone else. Since that is standard formatting, and the citation makes it clear that the quote is from the book, I don't see a need to make a change here or in the one below.Karanacs 13:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "..."compel the criminal to obey the mandates of the law."[63]" - again, is this Benner's summarization or is this what the actual resolution said?
    • "By 1873, "Reconstruction was all but over in Texas."[60]" - why quote here?
      • I was feeling decidedly uncreative and haven't come up with a better way to phrase that. This is the phrasing that the book used, and I liked it. If you have a better way to phrase it, feel free to make the change or suggest here! Karanacs 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Ross's application on 22 October 1886" - double check that date.
    • Good catch! I changed this to the correct date of 1866. Karanacs 13:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Reconstruction did not harm Ross's fortune" - like the above quote, is it Ross' or Ross's ? (I don't know, so I ask). --maclean 22:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • For a singular name, even if it ends in an s, 's is the proper way to do possessive. Just the apostrophe would be use if we were talking about the Rosses' fortune (that of his family). See WP:MOSQUOTE#Possessives, which actually uses "Ross" as an example. Karanacs 13:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, but the "By 1873, "Reconstruction was all but over in Texas."[60]" should probably not be quoted to a biographer of Ross. Fine to use as a reference/footnote but quotes tend to be reserved for when it matters what specific words the person said (like critical reviews, summaries, etc). How about By 1873, Reconstruction in Texas was coming to an end.[60] - I never got what "all but over" was supposed to mean...so it isn't over? --maclean 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you! I don't know why my brain refused to come up with new wording for the Reconstruction sentence, but I've replaced the quote with your suggestion. Karanacs 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Pass & support

• On the basis that it's OK. Learnedo 06:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo/Learnedo, without a sample of why you consider the article POV, your "vote" can be considered invalid. Raul, the nominator, and all of us need to see your reasoning. The nominator can't address it if there is no example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Note, Leranedo altered his comment above that I was responding to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This was three days ago. Don't have the time to give another detailed layout. It's not too bad at least. Leranedo 09:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, but please get someone else to go over the prose again. Here are samples of little issues.
• Spaced en dash for his dates: see MOS.
  • Fixed. Karanacs 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• What is "Waco"—a company?
  • Specified in the lead that Waco is a town.Karanacs 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• The comma fairy has been out in force: "After graduation, Ross became a Texas Ranger, and, in 1860 led troops in the Battle of Pease River, where he rescued Cynthia Ann Parker, who had been captured by the Comanches as a child." Perhaps just remove the obvious clanger, which is the one after "and".
  • I think I've chased the comma fairy away. I deleted the obvious one here and have made adjustments throughout the article. Karanacs 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• "Nineteenth", then "19th"; I prefer that latter, but whatever you do, be consistent. The numbers throughout need an audit.
  • I've gone through the article and edited some numbers. I think it's more consistent now, and if you see any other instances that need improvement let me know. Karanacs 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• "abutted"—rather ugly word. Does "adjoined" exist?
  • I swapped abutted for adjoined. Karanacs 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• "the young girl he had ordered rescued during the battle"—"Ordered rescued" is just a little too elliptical.
  • rewrote the sentence to "the young white girl who had been rescued during the battle" Karanacs 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Do we need "miles" and "km" linked?
• The currency values could do with conversion to current equivalents, if you can be bothered. They were very different in those days. See MOS on currencies.
• Please see MOS on ellipsis dots. The straight three or four dots are preferred, spaced in the correct way. Tony (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've fixed all the ellipses too. Thanks for pointing out the policy. Karanacs 14:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Support I helped copyedit this article and it seems to meet all FA requirements. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.