The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 20 April 2020 [1].
This article has been in development for several years, and I have written most of the copy based on multiple sources, including one book-length biography. Despite the fairly rich selection of sources on Williams, he is largely forgotten in Texas, even in his adopted hometown of Galveston. I believe the article presents a complete and balanced view of this very complex person, including some reasons offered by reliable sources explaining the indifference to his memory among Texans. The article has benefited from proofreading and criticism by experienced editors, both inside and outside of peer review.
This article is about Samuel May Williams, a tri-lingual merchant from Providence and Baltimore. He did business in Argentina and New Orleans before his arrival to Texas, where he served as secretary to Stephen F. Austin. He and a business partner were financiers of the Texas Revolution. Oldsanfelipe2 ( talk) 12:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Image review
Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll note that I had previously reviewed the article for GA, and made comments at the Peer Review. Things I've noted there have been addressed, and I feel the article is good at this point. Kaiser matias ( talk) 16:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Just adding some thoughts below on the lead for now:
So far (having just read the lead), my main critique would be to consider that your readers, including me, may not know much about Texas history. Wikilinks and other minor clarifying text would help. Ruby2010 ( talk) 02:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll copyedit as I go; please revert anything you disagree with.
Stephen F. Austin hired Williams for his colony in 1824, clerking and later adding the title of secretary...: suggest "Stephen F. Austin hired Williams for his colony in 1824, as a clerk and later as secretary..."; as written it's too easy to read Austin as the subject of "clerking".
However, by 1836, Williams and his partner, Thomas F. McKinney, sided with the Texians against Mexico.Suggest making it clear to readers unfamiliar with the history that this was the Texas Revolution.
Williams left Baltimore to oversee freight bound for Buenos Aires, where he stayed to conduct further business in South America. The Williams family conducted a robust trade with Argentina, shipping food in exchange for cash or hides. There Williams learned the Spanish and French languages, and his business dealings gave him experience in navigating Spanish business and political customs.I think this would be better reorganized to put the general statement about their business first: "The Williams family conducted a robust trade with Argentina, shipping food in exchange for cash or hides. Williams left Baltimore to oversee freight bound for Buenos Aires, where he stayed to conduct further business in South America. There Williams learned the Spanish and French languages, and his business dealings gave him experience in navigating Spanish business and political customs." I didn't make the change myself because I want to be sure the sources put the "robust trade" prior to Williams' departure from Baltimore.
As Williams first arrived in Texas, Stephen F. Austin, the son of the deceased empresario, traveled to Mexico City in order to reinstate and implement the Austin Colony.Using "empresario" isn't helpful; it's already clear what Moses Austin did, so most readers who have to follow the link will find that it doesn't add anything to their understanding of the sentence. I'd just make it "Moses' son, Stephen F. Austin". And why "reinstate"? The colony did not already exist so it could not be reinstated. Do you mean the contract needed to be reinstated?
This is around the time that Williams reverted to his birth name and earlier identity: any reason this can't be just "to his birth name"?
-- More to come. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
More:
Austin appointed Williams as a recording secretary: just checking that "a" is correct; there could have been more than one?
Austin later claimed that Williams had been underpaid for his service: given that it appears from the previous paragraph that Williams did not receive his full salary, can we drop "claimed"? Or is Austin referring more generally to Williams having been worth more than he had received?
Early in 1834 Williams co-founded the partnership of McKinney and Williams: Thomas McKinney is mentioned in the lead but has not yet been introduced in the body; I think a sentence would be helpful, even if almost nothing is known about Thomas. Perhaps "Early in 1834, Williams cofounded a business partnership with Thomas McKinney, setting up a warehouse... The firm, named McKinney and Williams..." And if any context is known about Thomas that would be worth adding. And was it the firm, the warehouse, or Williams that relocated to Quintana?
caused the state of Coahuila and Texas to split into two capitals: needs rephrasing; the state didn't split into two capitals. And can we put a date on this?
During meetings at the state capital, Williams bought 100 leagues of land in northeast Texas from the Monclova government at an eighty percent discount.Given that we've just said there are two state capitals it's a bit confusing to start the sentence by referring to "the state capital". Can we just cut that clause and start with "Williams bought..."? We could start the next sentence with "While in Monclovia" instead of "During the trip".
His participation in the Monclova government aroused the resentment of such persons, many of whom were already suspicious of Williams because of his former position of power in granting land in the Austin Colony.I think this could be simplified to "They resented his participation in the Monclova government, and many of them were already suspicious of Williams because of his former position of power in granting land in the Austin Colony."
He pivoted toward Texas independence while relying on financial assistance from his brother, Henry Howell Williams. He borrowed against his brother's credit to obtain the 125-ton schooner Invincible in support of a Texian naval force.Suggest shortening these: perhaps "He pivoted toward Texas independence, borrowing against the credit of his brother, Henry Howell Williams, to obtain the 125-ton schooner Invincible in support of a Texian naval force." But looking at the rest of the paragraph I see that we essentially repeat this information in "These loans to the Texas cause...", and then it's summarized again in "Thus the Republic..." This doesn't seem very concise.
-- More later, probably tonight. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
More:
McKinney and Williams were investors and co-founders of the Galveston City Company with Michel B. Menard. Menard hatched the development scheme in 1833, coordinating to acquire a Mexican title to bayside land at the east end of Galveston Island from Juan Seguin.How about something like "In 1833, McKinney and Williams partnered with Michel B. Menard to found the Galveston City Company, purchasing, from Juan Seguin, a Mexican title to bayside land at the east end of Galveston Island". If we say the company purchased the land we don't need to say they were investors, and I think it helps to have the date up front. Also I see our article on Juan Seguin puts the accent in: "Juan Seguín"; perhaps we should do the same.
Galveston City Company purchased from Seguin a league and a labor, or about 4,605 acres: both these terms were introduced earlier, but not linked till now; I'd move the links up, and I think we should be consistent about using italics (or not) for these terms.
Both Williams and McKinney joined the company's board of directors: this makes it sound as though they did not join the board till 1838 -- is that correct? I'd have thought they'd have been on the board from the start if they were equal investors with Menard.
establishing direct trade between England and the Republic of Texas: was this the first instance of direct trade between the two? If so I'd make that clear; if not I'm not sure it's worth mentioning, or at least say "an early instance of" or something along those lines.
In 1839, Williams represented Galveston County in the lower house of the Congress of the Republic of Texas. McKinney and Williams used their commission house to support the Williams campaign. They offered to buy Texas Treasury notes (redbacks) for 50 cents on the dollar just as rival commission houses offered only 37.5 cents on the dollar. Substantively, he campaigned based on a conservative monetary policy in response to the Republic's devaluing currency.Several things here. I think the sequence is wrong; why start by saying he was a representative and then go back in time to talk about the campaign?
Stopping there for tonight. Generally it looks to me as if all the right material is here, but it needs a comb run through the prose -- not for copyediting in the sense of ironing out grammar glitches and poorly constructed sentences, but to assemble this information into more of a narrative. I know that can be difficult when the material comes from different sources. So far I would not vote to support, but I think it's within reach. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
More:
Texans would benefit from the passage of such legislation; however, Williams and his former business partner had not been repaid by the Republic of Texas for its war debt: I think the point here is that Williams was campaigning on a platform that would benefit him personally; I'd make that clearer.
Oppose. I've now reached the end of the "Mercantile business" section and am going to stop and oppose on prose grounds. As I said above, it's not simple copyediting that's needed; there are just too many places where the information is not presented to the reader fluently. I've tried to suggest rephrasings where possible but it really requires familiarity with the sources to get this right, so I'm hesitant to jump in and edit. If this FAC is archived I'd like to try to help with the fixes, working on the article talk page, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have available. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 09:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The extent of the concerns Mike raises at this stage of a long review indicates it's time to archive this and work on it outside the FAC process. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 20 April 2020 [1].
This article has been in development for several years, and I have written most of the copy based on multiple sources, including one book-length biography. Despite the fairly rich selection of sources on Williams, he is largely forgotten in Texas, even in his adopted hometown of Galveston. I believe the article presents a complete and balanced view of this very complex person, including some reasons offered by reliable sources explaining the indifference to his memory among Texans. The article has benefited from proofreading and criticism by experienced editors, both inside and outside of peer review.
This article is about Samuel May Williams, a tri-lingual merchant from Providence and Baltimore. He did business in Argentina and New Orleans before his arrival to Texas, where he served as secretary to Stephen F. Austin. He and a business partner were financiers of the Texas Revolution. Oldsanfelipe2 ( talk) 12:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Image review
Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll note that I had previously reviewed the article for GA, and made comments at the Peer Review. Things I've noted there have been addressed, and I feel the article is good at this point. Kaiser matias ( talk) 16:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Just adding some thoughts below on the lead for now:
So far (having just read the lead), my main critique would be to consider that your readers, including me, may not know much about Texas history. Wikilinks and other minor clarifying text would help. Ruby2010 ( talk) 02:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll copyedit as I go; please revert anything you disagree with.
Stephen F. Austin hired Williams for his colony in 1824, clerking and later adding the title of secretary...: suggest "Stephen F. Austin hired Williams for his colony in 1824, as a clerk and later as secretary..."; as written it's too easy to read Austin as the subject of "clerking".
However, by 1836, Williams and his partner, Thomas F. McKinney, sided with the Texians against Mexico.Suggest making it clear to readers unfamiliar with the history that this was the Texas Revolution.
Williams left Baltimore to oversee freight bound for Buenos Aires, where he stayed to conduct further business in South America. The Williams family conducted a robust trade with Argentina, shipping food in exchange for cash or hides. There Williams learned the Spanish and French languages, and his business dealings gave him experience in navigating Spanish business and political customs.I think this would be better reorganized to put the general statement about their business first: "The Williams family conducted a robust trade with Argentina, shipping food in exchange for cash or hides. Williams left Baltimore to oversee freight bound for Buenos Aires, where he stayed to conduct further business in South America. There Williams learned the Spanish and French languages, and his business dealings gave him experience in navigating Spanish business and political customs." I didn't make the change myself because I want to be sure the sources put the "robust trade" prior to Williams' departure from Baltimore.
As Williams first arrived in Texas, Stephen F. Austin, the son of the deceased empresario, traveled to Mexico City in order to reinstate and implement the Austin Colony.Using "empresario" isn't helpful; it's already clear what Moses Austin did, so most readers who have to follow the link will find that it doesn't add anything to their understanding of the sentence. I'd just make it "Moses' son, Stephen F. Austin". And why "reinstate"? The colony did not already exist so it could not be reinstated. Do you mean the contract needed to be reinstated?
This is around the time that Williams reverted to his birth name and earlier identity: any reason this can't be just "to his birth name"?
-- More to come. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
More:
Austin appointed Williams as a recording secretary: just checking that "a" is correct; there could have been more than one?
Austin later claimed that Williams had been underpaid for his service: given that it appears from the previous paragraph that Williams did not receive his full salary, can we drop "claimed"? Or is Austin referring more generally to Williams having been worth more than he had received?
Early in 1834 Williams co-founded the partnership of McKinney and Williams: Thomas McKinney is mentioned in the lead but has not yet been introduced in the body; I think a sentence would be helpful, even if almost nothing is known about Thomas. Perhaps "Early in 1834, Williams cofounded a business partnership with Thomas McKinney, setting up a warehouse... The firm, named McKinney and Williams..." And if any context is known about Thomas that would be worth adding. And was it the firm, the warehouse, or Williams that relocated to Quintana?
caused the state of Coahuila and Texas to split into two capitals: needs rephrasing; the state didn't split into two capitals. And can we put a date on this?
During meetings at the state capital, Williams bought 100 leagues of land in northeast Texas from the Monclova government at an eighty percent discount.Given that we've just said there are two state capitals it's a bit confusing to start the sentence by referring to "the state capital". Can we just cut that clause and start with "Williams bought..."? We could start the next sentence with "While in Monclovia" instead of "During the trip".
His participation in the Monclova government aroused the resentment of such persons, many of whom were already suspicious of Williams because of his former position of power in granting land in the Austin Colony.I think this could be simplified to "They resented his participation in the Monclova government, and many of them were already suspicious of Williams because of his former position of power in granting land in the Austin Colony."
He pivoted toward Texas independence while relying on financial assistance from his brother, Henry Howell Williams. He borrowed against his brother's credit to obtain the 125-ton schooner Invincible in support of a Texian naval force.Suggest shortening these: perhaps "He pivoted toward Texas independence, borrowing against the credit of his brother, Henry Howell Williams, to obtain the 125-ton schooner Invincible in support of a Texian naval force." But looking at the rest of the paragraph I see that we essentially repeat this information in "These loans to the Texas cause...", and then it's summarized again in "Thus the Republic..." This doesn't seem very concise.
-- More later, probably tonight. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
More:
McKinney and Williams were investors and co-founders of the Galveston City Company with Michel B. Menard. Menard hatched the development scheme in 1833, coordinating to acquire a Mexican title to bayside land at the east end of Galveston Island from Juan Seguin.How about something like "In 1833, McKinney and Williams partnered with Michel B. Menard to found the Galveston City Company, purchasing, from Juan Seguin, a Mexican title to bayside land at the east end of Galveston Island". If we say the company purchased the land we don't need to say they were investors, and I think it helps to have the date up front. Also I see our article on Juan Seguin puts the accent in: "Juan Seguín"; perhaps we should do the same.
Galveston City Company purchased from Seguin a league and a labor, or about 4,605 acres: both these terms were introduced earlier, but not linked till now; I'd move the links up, and I think we should be consistent about using italics (or not) for these terms.
Both Williams and McKinney joined the company's board of directors: this makes it sound as though they did not join the board till 1838 -- is that correct? I'd have thought they'd have been on the board from the start if they were equal investors with Menard.
establishing direct trade between England and the Republic of Texas: was this the first instance of direct trade between the two? If so I'd make that clear; if not I'm not sure it's worth mentioning, or at least say "an early instance of" or something along those lines.
In 1839, Williams represented Galveston County in the lower house of the Congress of the Republic of Texas. McKinney and Williams used their commission house to support the Williams campaign. They offered to buy Texas Treasury notes (redbacks) for 50 cents on the dollar just as rival commission houses offered only 37.5 cents on the dollar. Substantively, he campaigned based on a conservative monetary policy in response to the Republic's devaluing currency.Several things here. I think the sequence is wrong; why start by saying he was a representative and then go back in time to talk about the campaign?
Stopping there for tonight. Generally it looks to me as if all the right material is here, but it needs a comb run through the prose -- not for copyediting in the sense of ironing out grammar glitches and poorly constructed sentences, but to assemble this information into more of a narrative. I know that can be difficult when the material comes from different sources. So far I would not vote to support, but I think it's within reach. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
More:
Texans would benefit from the passage of such legislation; however, Williams and his former business partner had not been repaid by the Republic of Texas for its war debt: I think the point here is that Williams was campaigning on a platform that would benefit him personally; I'd make that clearer.
Oppose. I've now reached the end of the "Mercantile business" section and am going to stop and oppose on prose grounds. As I said above, it's not simple copyediting that's needed; there are just too many places where the information is not presented to the reader fluently. I've tried to suggest rephrasings where possible but it really requires familiarity with the sources to get this right, so I'm hesitant to jump in and edit. If this FAC is archived I'd like to try to help with the fixes, working on the article talk page, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have available. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 09:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The extent of the concerns Mike raises at this stage of a long review indicates it's time to archive this and work on it outside the FAC process. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)