Sam Houston was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I just uploaded a portrait (right) of Sam Houston by Thomas Flintoff from Google Art Project. Feel free to useful if useful. Dcoetzee 20:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Added it to the article. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This was removed twice today by an IP user claiming this is not Sam Houston. I have posted a message on the talk page of Dcoetzee Also, a message has been posted on the IP talk page. — Maile (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Here's the source. Although I know for a fact the subject is named "Sam Houston" and it was painted c. 1851 (when the subject of this article was 58, which is about how old the subejct of the painting looks), and it's from a Houston museum which is located in Texas where the subject of this article was prominent, I can't be completely confident that it is him without contacting The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston where it is archived. If you'd like to take this on just to be sure, please consider it. Dcoetzee 08:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Since Houston did not marry until the age of 35, when he was governor of TN, it seems to make more sense to move the section on "Marriages" to that point in the article chronologically. Otherwise, the reader has to reverse by nearly 20 years and go back to his fighting in the War of 1812. It seems odd.Parkwells (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Combined it at the bottom under "Personal life and death". Removed some unreferenced and tagged material. I know you just did a bunch of copyediting on this subject, but this whole section as combined probably needs copy editing, so feel free to tackle that. — Maile (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Under the section Governor of Texas, an improvement to the last part of the first paragraph would be to remove the parentheses as well as "Whereas", and start a new sentence;
"Thomas McKean and John Dickinson had each served as chief executives of Delaware and then of Pennsylvania in the late 18th century, and other state governors had also served as governors of American territory, they achieved at least one of their positions by indirect election or appointment.".
A parentheses is used to tell a reader that an "explanation, step, sub-point or alteration appears in the text ". While there is some controversy surrounding this (the proper use of parentheses in English) a stand-alone complete sentence, even though explaining element(s) in a prior sentence, does not need to be in parentheses for any proof that it is a further "explanation" of a previous sentence. A complete sentence, in parentheses, would be better used inside another sentence, or commas used. Even if there are some that champion the use of a complete stand-alone sentence in parentheses to explain elements of, or add to a previous sentence, there is no controversy that the same effect will be served without parentheses. If this is not logical then would someone please explain why? Otr500 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit as you see fit. As is, it's a completely unsourced paragraph, which it shouldn't be. But don't be shy about improving it. — Maile (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I will look for a source "if" I make any edits. I always check because I have taken a position of disdain when making a good faith edit, especially with references, and a guardian editor (if you will) reverts with some off-the-wall reasoning. I have all but stopped editing because of what I consider a "project cabal" anyway. I know; There is no such thing as a Cabal and it is all in my mind. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The accusations were serious enough to provoke a duel - but it doesn't say what they were. It just says 'Stanbery accused Houston of being in league with John Van Fossen and Congressman Robert S. Rose. The three men had bid on supplying rations to the various tribes... After Stanbery refused to answer Houston's letters about the accusation, Houston confronted him...'
Enlightenment, please. Valetude (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The opening section of the main article, headed 'Biography', appears to be some sort of extended lede, and it is clear that the story kicks-off naturally at the section headed 'Early Life'. The rest of the article duplicates all the material currently under 'Biography'.
The material in the 'Biography' section should be incorporated into the current lede, which is much too short. But this material needs re-structuring, as it does not flow in sequence. Valetude (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to make improvements where you think necessary. — Maile (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)