# Talk:Samuel May Williams

Here is the current text for the "Legacy" section:
"His contributions in the areas of finance and business greatly aided the Republic of Texas. He was among the founders of Galveston, Texas[7] and is considered the founder of the Texas Navy.[8] The house he built in 1839 is on the National Register of Historic Places."
There are currently two sections: "Biography" and "Legacy." The whole article is a biography, so the "Biography" is a redundant section name.  The first sentence ("His contributions...") is opinion without supporting evidence.  I will find evidence for his contributions to the Republic of Texas and add it to the article.  There is much material from good sources, so it won't be difficult.
Sentences 2 and 3 can be moved to other parts of the article.
So I propose to restructure the article by deleting the sections "Biography" and "Legacy," then elevating all of the current subsections to main sections, and adding sections as needed.
Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)oldsanfelipe

 Done
My earlier edits of this page cited articles with*out* specifying page numbers, only a page range for the entire article. I also used chapter references instead of page references for a book I cited. I am inserting shorter page ranges to make this easier to follow for readers and other editors. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Edited once by Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I have tagged two citations, otherwise I have verified all citations in the article. As I have written almost all of the existing text in the article, the mistakes are my own and I will edit the article according to reliable sources. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
There was a big assist from User:78.26, who made the references much easier to follow by changing to a "bibliography format." With three sources written by Henson, it was hard to check the article's sources under the old format. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The section "After the Austin Colony" currently reads, "Early in 1834, he co-founded the partnership of McKinney & Williams, setting up a warehouse at Brazoria, then relocated to Quintana, at the mouth of the Brazos River. The firm operated small steamboats on the Brazos and used its warehouse to manage transfer of freight to and from the larger ships operating on the Gulf of Mexico." (Bold added.) This is supported by Nichols (1952). Henson (1976) at p. 50 writes, "He and Thomas F. McKinney had entered a partnership as commission merchants (probably early in 1833)...." Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Frantz (1952), p. 2, "McKinney and Williams entered their informal mercantile partnership in Quintana, Texas, at the mouth of the Brazos, in 1833...." Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Edited once by Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I referenced all three in the article. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The article currently supports place of burial with Find-A-Grave, which is not an WP:RS because its content is user-generated without editorial control. This is something I used a few years ago. I am trying to clean up some of my messes and looking for a good source. Trinity Episcopal Church in Galveston [1] has a web site with a database for burial, but it runs like molasses. It times out each time. I will find a better source or delete the content soon. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The article currently reads, "He moved to New Orleans around 1815, where he worked as a bookkeeper." (Nichols (1952), 190.) Henson (1976) at p. 6 says, "Just when Williams returned to the United States is unknown....late in 1818 Sam Williams was in Washington, D.C." Also, "Williams lived in New Orleans in 1819...." (p. 7)  The brief second paragraph in Early life may need a total re-write. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Franz (1952), p. 2, claims that Williams spent two years in Argentina, returned to the US in 1815, and served as a secretary for Andrew Jackson in New Orleans. It's more plausible that Williams spent more than two years in Argentina since that would explain how Williams already understood Spanish-language legal documents when he went to work in the Austin Colony in 1824. Henson's less certain timeline makes more sense.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I represented all three versions. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe: (and anyone else interested) I have access to the Cartwright book at my library.  Nichols published a 331-page biography in 1956, which I found by trying to replace that findagrave citation.  Unfortunately, the closest copy of that one is 176 miles away.  The citation can also be replaced by Southwestern Historical Quarterly - Volume 56 - Page 210 and Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, Galveston, Texas, 1841-1953: A Memorial History by William Manning Morgan, Anson Jones Press, 1954, should you have access to them.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@78.26: I still had the .pdf for Nichols (1952) in a tab on page 209. You found what we needed at page 210. Good catch! Thanks for helping to clean up the mess. I have added your citation as well. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@78.26: I now see the full-length biography by Nichols (1956) on WorldCat. I am not familiar with it. There's also a two-volume history of Galveston which includes narratives on Williams, Menard, McKinney, and the other usual suspects. The Wiki article's bibliography is not exhaustive, but I think it is sufficient. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Oldsanfelipe:I agree.  Perhaps the Nichols 1956 biography should be listed under "further reading", though.  What do you think?  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. Another further reading should be the bio in Hayes, Galveston, though I will need to get a page range. And thanks for your clean-up yesterday. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Williams owned slaves. I am not sure about the appropriate way to talk about it. However, given the details of his family life, it seems wrong not to mention it. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts about how the article meets the B-standard?
1. "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations." 
2. "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." 
3. "The article has a defined structure." 
4 "The article is reasonably well-written."
5. "The article contains supporting materials where appropriate."
6. "The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way."
Oldsanfelipe (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we're aiming for "B"  I'm quite sure it's there already.  How about GA?  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that it meets the B-standard.
There are three items which make it fall short of GA-3a: an insufficient narrative for his banking activities, other merchant activities in Galveston, and I need to figure out how to incorporate his term as a Mexican congressman in Monclova into the infobox. The big gap is the last ten years of his life in Galveston. Done
Is there too much detail in places? (3-b)
Check the images for copyright, otherwise it meets 2a–d. Done
After all of these other items are completed, edit the lead section for completeness.
Oldsanfelipe (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Samuel May Williams.png (infobox):  Source of image clearly given.  Clearly in public domain as published before 1923.  Integral to this article.
File:San felipe de austin shs cabin 2007.jpg:  Source of image clearly given.  Clearly usable as WP:CC3 as the work of author.  Not integral to the article, but displays very well and certainly adds visual interest.
File:Flag of Coahuila y Tejas.svg:  Source of image clearly given.  Clearly usable as WP:CC3 as the work of author.  I have a question about the appropriateness of using this, because the file says "possible".  Although this disclaimer is also in the photo caption on the article, how much debate is there regarding the veracity of this image?  If this is based on strong historical research based on a clear historical description, but there are no surviving artifacts, then it is probably appropriate.  If it is based on educated guesswork, then it probably shouldn't be included since it isn't central to the understanding of the topic, namely Williams. Added by OSF:  Done
File:Wreck of the Invincible.jpg  Source of image clearly given.  Clearly in public domain as product of U.S. Government.  Important to this article.
File:Plan of the City of Galveston, Texas.jpg  Source of image clearly given.  Clearly released into public domain by rights holder.  Highly important to this article.  In the licensing part of this image, it states This image is in the public domain and may be used freely. If publishing in print, electronically, or on a website, please use the citation: "Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries."  I think we should add this wording, either in the caption itself or as a footnote. Added by OSF:  Done
File:SOUTH SIDE - Williams-Tucker House, 3601 Avenue P, Galveston, Galveston County, TX HABS TEX,84-GALV,42-3.tif  Source of image clearly given.  Clearly in public domain as product of U.S. Government.  Integral to this article.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment — This is an excellent analysis of the images. I needed this. I intuit my way through posting images and this is clearly an area of my knowledge deficit. That being said, my intuitions are not terrible. Good catch on the request for credit on the Galveston map. If I am to be completely honest about the flag, this is based on speculation as I cannot claim much knowledge about the history of Coahuila or about flags in general. The claim that this was the flag is dubious. More than likely, it was one of various flags used by Coahuila. I need to find something else. Given the context, something specific to Monclova would be even better. Whichever, it needs a better pedigree. I do think a visual reinforcement would be helpful both as a reminder that this was a Mexican political struggle and that Williams navigated freely between Latin American and Anglo cultures. I just need to find an appropriate image. Thanks again, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Mexican Texas has both the History of Texas and History of Mexico templates in it.  If we did the same here, would this be the "visual reinforcement" you are seeking?  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:02, 30 August 2018 (UT
Let's use the template. We can add other images later. I am looking at maps, but nothing is satisfying. It would be helpful to the reader to show a map with the time-appropriate boundaries of Coahuila y Tejas, which also show the locations of San Felipe, Saltillo, and Monclova. The two maps from the period lop off most of Coahuila, omitting Monclova and Saltillo. In addition, there is a town called "Manclova," and I'm afraid someone will mistake that for the missing Monclova.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to left-align the photo of the San Felipe dog-trot cabin to match the text? Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The Commons has an image of a note issued by Williams's bank: File:Commercial and Agricultural Bank of Texas $1.00 (one dollar) private scrip (8519862080).jpg. The rights are unclear to me. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Great find!  I hope we can add it.  I would *think* it is in the public domain, being well before 1923.  However, I'm  not sure if U.S copyright law applies, or Mexico's.  It probably doesn't matter.  My only question is that while the original artifact is certainly in the public domain, I don't know if the photograph of that artifact is, the license is indeed unclear.  Perhaps we can ask someone who's a lot better at this kind of thing than I am, maybe @Mz7: and @Jo-Jo Eumerus:?  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
In these cases there can be two copyrights, one of the photo and one of the bank note. I've answered the question about the bank note's copyright below. As for the photo, under US law not all photos are automatically copyrightable: There has to be some element of originality involved and per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. an unmodified 2D photo of a 2D object such as a bank note carries no copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: What about a possible third layer of copyrightability: the digital production and presentation of a photo of an artifact? I am thinking of online digital archives, such as the The Portal to Texas History? They consent to share, but the question is, could they claim a copyright if they wanted? Thanks for your help, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
No, merely displaying something does not entitle them to any copyright. If they did modify the photo say by recolouring it then they could. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: @Nikkimaria: Here is a fresh thread for y'all.
The following image is at the Commons: File:Commercial and Agricultural Bank of Texas $1.00 (one dollar) private scrip (8519862080).jpg. Since we are dealing with a bank note, its publication date is unclear. The note was most likely issued in the 1850s, but does that mean it was published at that time? So I have no idea what counts for publication of a bank note in copyright. The Commons's explanation of rights of this image is also unclear to me. In what manner might this image be used on the Samuel May Williams page? He founded the bank that issued this note, so it would be a very helpful visual aid for a part of the article where such aids are lacking. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

For a bank note, the time that it was first distributed to the public would be its "publication date", and for bank notes that would be shortly after it was issued. So the publication date here would be the 1850s and since works published before 1923 are in the public domain this one is too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

If you think these are appropriate, I have uploaded a few images:

File:Galveston wharf fees18Feb43.png|thumb|The Texas Times (Galveston, Texas) publishes wharfage rates, Feb 18, 1843
File:Galveston strand adv1844.png|thumb|An 1844 advertisement for a jeweler on the Strand, near the wharves
File:Sb new york.png    Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
One more:

File:Galveston island 1853.png|thumb|Map showing eastern entrance to Galveston Bay and the east end of Galveston Island. Survey between 1848 and 1852, map published 1853. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The citation to Henson's 1976 work states "via archive.org".  As such, should there not be a link to the source?  It also says "subscription required", which suggests payment.  Isn't Template:Registration required more accurate?
I find the last sentence of the first paragraph in "Early life" to be awkward.  "uncle Nathaniel" is directly mentioned previously, and somehow it strikes me as a children's TV host.  I'm not sure how the source reads, but did Henry Howell directly succeed Samuel as the apprentice?  Is the timing ambiguous?
The last two paragraphs of "After the Austin Colony" are a bit hard to follow, but that's probably an inevitable result of convoluted history.  I'm curious about the statement "which many Texans perceived as corrupt."  Was this truly a widely-held position, or was it unique to those of santanistas persuasion?
The last sentence in the first paragraph of "Texas independence" doesn't seem to logically follow the previous sentence.  Should "His actions in Monclova made him unpopular in Texas" perhaps be moved to the end of the previous section?  Again, was he universally unpopular, or only unpopular at the government in Saltillo?
The brother mentioned in the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Texas independence", that is Henry Howell, no?  Why not identify him at the beginning, instead of waiting until the last sentence to clarify the context?
Third paragraph, Galveston: Mercantile business.  Lamar's "Indian policy" is not explained, maybe it doesn't need to be as it becomes clear when clicking on Lamar.  However, what if we said "against President Mirabeau Lamar’s spending proposals and aggression against Native Americans"?  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi 78.26:
I did not know about the "registration required" parameter. That would appear to be more accurate. The missing url for Henson (1976) is an oversight and I will add it. I also used "subscription required" for JSTOR. They offer a fee for service, but in practical terms I do not know anyone who pays for JSTOR: they gain access through an institution which pays for JSTOR. So what's the correct way to template this situation?
The Williams family recycled names like water bottles. Nathaniel Felton Williams was the name of Sam's paternal uncle and his younger brother. There's another Nathaniel Felton Williams who may have been a second cousin or grand uncle, but is not relevant to this story. That reminds me, there is a family history which may or may not be appropriate for an external link. My choices in phrasing addressed the problem of brother Nathaniel Williams working for uncle Nathaniel Felton Williams, avoiding a close paraphrase and even clunkier locutions. My inclusion of this factoid was to establish yet another member of the family who worked as a merchant. Brother was also known as "Nat," but this was not mentioned at the location cited and would have required a synthetic interpretation of the sources. Brother Nathaniel was also a trading partner of Sam. I may need to address this partnership in the article, though it is not always well-defined in the sources.
There were three political factions at that time, two which were most relevant to the Republic of Mexico, and one which was a typical Anglo-Texan position, who were technically Mexican citizens if they were landholders, but did not identify socially as Mexicans. The Constitution of 1824 established the principals of the Republic of Mexico, with strong powers at the state level, similar to the United States. Santa Anna decide that he did not like the Republic, and declared a central government headed by Santa Anna. The Monclova government rebelled against Santa Anna by running its own government in Monclova while those loyal to Santa Anna ran a puppet state government in Saltillo. The Monclova government was represented by federalistas, who were against a strong central government. For the many Texans, Monclova was a symbol of two things. Federalism, which they liked, and some specific pieces of legislation, which they viewed as corrupt, such as the large land grants. These claims in the article are all supported by the sources. I will pull some quotes later.
I will take a look at the Henry Howell Williams reference.
This was a case of representing the ideas of the source and not writing about what I know. Henson did not clarify Lamar's "Indian policy." I thought it was important to include that Lamar and Houston were in disagreement and these were presented as defining policies, and Williams sided with Houston during the legislative term. Maybe there's a anchor for Lamar's "indian policy" and the clarification can be a direct link. Some people associate "Native-Americans" with Americans, and not with people of the Americas, but the work around would be "policies toward indigenous peoples." This rephrasing does not change the meaning. Thanks for your help, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd leave "subscription required" because the institutions most people access JSTOR through are subscribers.
How about something like "A younger brother, Henry Howell Williams, succeeded Samuel as apprentice to the uncle."  Maybe it's not any better.
I have no doubt each claim you've made is supported by the sources, you've worked incredibly hard at this.  Based on what you just wrote, it sounds like the "average Texan on the street (cowpath?)" was somewhat neutral between the parties, as none represented their interests well.
I was basing my statement based on what is contained in the Mirabeau_B._Lamar article.  I really like your "indigenous peoples" phrasing.
That's really about it.  After this, I think it's ready for FA review.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I changed Henson (1976), but left the JSTORs alone.
Wrong younger brother! (My mistake, of course.) Now it should make sense why I used "uncle Nathaniel." Another point of naming confusion: Sam's father was Howell Williams; another younger brother was Henry Howell Williams, who was Wikipedia notable.
Although the agreement with Mexico made it clear that the Anglo settlers would be Mexican citizens living according to Mexican rules, these Anglo settlers did not abide. They appealed to Mexican law when it suited them, and broke the law when it didn't. When the Coahuila y Tejas government split into two parallel systems, Anglos were against Santa Anna from the beginning. They sided with Monclova at first: Monclova was preparing for civil war. But the Anglos quickly turned against Monclova after seeing the legislative session. Williams was a Monclova ally, and remained so, making him an enemy of Santa Anna and Cos. Many Texans did not like Williams in 1835.
I fixed the sentence, changing the wording and including to a link with an anchor to his presidency. This should make it clear. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Edited once by Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

78.26: It is not supposed to make a difference, but it may help to first attain GA before trying for FA. What do you think? Would you like to co-nominate the article? I have nominated Charles Morgan (businessman), which is currently under review. Shortly it should either pass or fail, but I am trying to keep my plate clear in case I need to respond to questions. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe: I apologize for my absence, I've been busy as of late with non-Wikipedia things.  It's going to get worse before it gets better, I'll probably not edit here in any significant manner until next Thursday.  I knew you wanted to take this to GA, didn't realize FA was your goal.  You rock!  Or in Dallas-speak, where I resided for 10 years, yee-haw!  Sure, I'd co-nominate the article for GA, but I don't want to take credit for all of your hard work!  We've been over it fairly thoroughly, if it fails it will either a)not fail by much, and will be easily fixed, or b)be reviewed by someone either new or otherwise shouldn't be reviewing GAs.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@78.26: You are correct in thinking that it was not my initial goal to reach FA. I do not completely understand the FA process and I still have not decided to take it to that step. Regardless, I would like to submit the article for GA. The standard for an editor nominating an article for GA is making a significant contribution to the article. Anyone who is familiar with this standard should know you would not be taking all of the credit. There is ample evidence of your contributions on this talk page: careful proofreading of various drafts, copy editing, a thorough analysis of the images, and exposing my blunders. I will still take the lead on answering substantive questions, which will probably be months from now. Please let me know of your decision. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@Oldsanfelipe: Then here goes.  I don't see how to do a co-nomination, so I just went ahead and nominated.  It will be obvious who did the work.  When I created the article, I did not have it run on WP:DYK.  Do you want to run it there after it passes GA, or would you like to reserve this for a Featured Article appearance later?  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@78.26: That's great. I think I can just add myself as a co-nominator. There is no special form that I am aware of. I have never been involved in DYK, but I guess that's something we can consider later. I will also remind the reviewers of the discussion on the talk page since those comments may anticipate some of their questions. You are a music person, so I might mention I have created one music-related article, Streckfus Steamers, and edited a few others: Fate Marable, Louis Armstrong, and Ornette Coleman. These may be outside of my areas of competence, as I need to read more on these subjects to be be a better contributor. Thanks again, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samuel May Williams/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 16:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Will take a look at this one. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


### Comments
"...provincial government in Monclova government..." Repetitive use of "government" here; the second one can be dropped.
Agreed.  Done.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
"He briefly returned to public service when accepted a diplomatic mission to negotiate a treaty with Mexico..." I noted the problem here in italics; can you clarify if it was Williams who accepted the diplomatic mission, or Texas as a whole?
This is in the lede, so I am basing this on the article body.  I changed the sentence to make it clear that Williams ("he") accepted the diplomatic mission.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Overall the lead is good, but it seems like it could be slightly compressed. It should be a summary of the article, and while it does that I think some more specific details can be removed here. For example it notes he learnt Spanish and French during his travels, but that is not mentioned in the body itself; ideally that should be removed from the lead and put into the body.
I revised the lede, please let me know if you think anything else should be condensed or removed.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
"...and his family tree included a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a president of Yale University." May be worth noting the names of these individuals.
It would indeed be worth noting their names.  Unfortunately, the source does not give them.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
"Williams left Baltimore to oversee freight bound for Buenos Aires..." Is there a date he left Baltimore?
No.  Only the sequence of his movements is known, not the exact timeline.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
"During his visit, word traveled to the capital city..." It's a little unclear who is visiting, Williams or Austin.
Clarified.  It is referring to Austin.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
"Austin had promised Williams an annual salary of $1,000..." Clarify what currency that is (USD or other), and it may be worth noting the value, either by noting it's current value, or a comparable value for the era.
This would be US Dollars, as the only other option would be Mexican pesos, which would not have the "$" dollar sign.  I'm adding 2019 dollars, but the problem is that this soon looks dated if not regularly maintained.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
"Early in 1834 he co-founded the partnership of McKinney and Williams..." As this starts a new section, replace "he" with "Williams."
Done.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
"By 1829, Samuel and Sarah Williams were caring for two children." If I understand this correctly, the children were not Williams'? If so, it would be good to note they were orphaned or came from somewhere, in order to clarify this.
Upon my reading of the source, they were both his.  Please review the significantly revised sentence.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
"Unknown to Williams, by that time, the Mexican Army was marching across Texas. Before Williams returned to San Felipe, the town was destroyed by fire, as the Texas colonists escaped to the East." This sentence seems out of place in a section about Freemasonry. It would seem more appropriate to move it higher up in the article where it is more relevant to events of the era.
I've significantly modified (hopefully simplified) the wording to give it more context, and given an additional source.  I hope this makes sense to the reader, because adding a throwaway line about freemasonry in the "Texas independence" section, where it fits chronologically, would confuse the logic flow.  I think.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Citation 32 refers to "Henson (2012)" but I don't see that in the bibliography.
It's from the 1976 source.  IIRC, Oldsanfelipe was initially working from a 2012 reprint of the 1976 source, and later fixed this.  In any case, the claims certainly match the pages of the 1976 book.  I have fixed the citation.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, the Nichols book on Williams (1956) is listed in "Further reading," but not used as a source. Is there any reason it wasn't consulted?
Ah!  Finally a question I actually knew the answer to without having to do any research!  Nichols published a complete biography of 331 pages, presumably a much-expanded version of her 21-page biography that appeared in The Southwestern Historical Quarterly.  Unfortunately, neither ldsanfelipe nor I had access to this book.  I'm certain it would have been very helpful.  But if someone has the time, money, and energy to visit one of the eight libraries that hold it [2], I'm sure it would be enlightening.  Therefore it's listed under "further reading".  We discussed this at Talk:Samuel May Williams#Furthering discussion (sources).  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Totally understand. A shame nearly all extant copies are in Texas, but can't work with what you don't have access to.
That should be it. I'll take another look once the above is addressed though, just to make sure nothing was missed. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: Unfortunately, the main contributor to this article hasn't edited since December.  I'll ping them.  I'll try to gather the sources and see what I can figure out, there doesn't seem to be anything insurmountable here.  Thanks for the review!  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@78.26: Thanks for the update. A shame to hear that, but if you think you can handle this, I'll keep it open until you either address everything, or don't think it will be possible. I've got both here and the article watched as well, so will keep track of things that way, too. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@78.26: It has been a few weeks now, has there been any chance to get anything addressed here? Kaiser matias (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kaiser matias: I have finished responding to each of your points to the best of my ability.  If I haven't explicitly stated so previously, thank you very much for all the work you have put into this review.  I look forward to your further input.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Well done on getting things fixed up. I know it is challenging to go in and work on something that you aren't the primary contact on, so your work is commendable. The article looks good enough for me to promote. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias, 78.26,  and PGNormand:
Hi Kaiser matias: I am now posting as Oldsanfelipe2. I am one of the GA-nominators for Samuel May Williams. A serious illness forced me into a long hiatus. When I was ready to return, I had forgotten my password and was not able to reset it. Thank you for working with User:78.26, who is a fine editor and administrator. I am proud of the work I did on this article, but it would not have even been nomination-worthy without the assistance of 78.26. I also have a shoutout for PGNormand, who had the patience to dig through SMW's involvement with Free masonry. Henson mentions this, but I was not willing to do additional research to include this in the article. In my opinion, this is Wikipedia working as it should, as a collaboration which improves content. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It was my pleasure, and I hope all is well now. It was an interesting article, and I was quite happy to review it and learn something as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, PGNormand's edits to the article have been unhelpful. I do not have access to most of the sources cited, but I have just checked two citations, and neither support the accompanying text. The standards of Wikipedia require that we use only content that we can support through reliable secondary sources. So far the edits I have checked failed to do this in a radical way. Thus I am deleting all content from the Freemasonry section. 
Here are the unsupported statements:

"After his arrival in New York City, on November 21, 1835, Williams was initiated in Independent Royal Arch Lodge No. 2, Free & Accepted Masons, one of the oldest Masonic lodges in the state of New York." This statement is cited to Duncan, p. 280: [3]. However, only his date of initiation is supported by the source. I found no profile of Williams or any other mention of him in the book. I can only conclude that the rest of the sentence is synthesis or commentary added by PGNormand.
"Williams received the first three degrees of Freemasonry that same night. Four days later, on November 25, 1835, he received all the degrees of the Royal Arch chapter in Jerusalem Chapter No. 8, Royal Arch Masons. Six days later, on December 1, 1835, he received the orders of Masonic Knighthood in Morton Commandery No. 4, Knights Templar. A week after that, on December 8, 1835, the General Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons, meeting in Washington, D.C., granted Williams a charter for a chapter of Royal Arch Masons to be known as San Felipe de Austin Chapter No. 1, it being the first Royal Arch chapter in Texas, and he was installed as its first presiding officer. Before Williams could establish the chaper, San Felipe was destroyed by the Texas colonists in their escape from the Mexican Army." Two citations follow this text. The first links to a freemasonry website that says that I this url was in error. The second is to an article from The Handbook of Texas Online: [4]. The only mention of masons here is, "Some of the earliest Masonic meetings in Texas convened in an oak grove near the town." It makes no statement about there about an attempt to establish as chapter there, nor does it mention Williams as a mason.
The reliability of Wikipedia is based not just on the citation of reliable secondary sources, but that the text we write is true to those sources. I am truly embarrassed that I took this article to Peer Review and was just about to submit it as a FAC. I did not check the sources (and I even missed the typo) in the Freemasonry section. PGNormand, at the risk of sounding condescending, if you don't understand WP:VERIFIABLE, I will explain it the best I can. Better yet, there are more experienced editors that you can ask at Teahouse.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

See: [5]  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. Those paragraphs were excerpts from a paper I wrote about a year ago, which is heavy with endnotes. I see that the Lightfoot article, which was a PDF on-line, has been taken down from the website where I found it. That is the problem with using on-line sources. But, if I had used the published source, the 1943 annual Proceedings of the Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Texas, I know you couldn't find it. As a librarian at a Masonic library, I have access to hard copies of those Proceedings, but I understand that most others will not. That is why I posted the on-line source, which is now taken down. 
The citation of the article on San Felipe de Austin was simply to support the statement that the town was burned. Dr. Carter's book, "Masonry in Texas," is readily available at most major libraries in Texas. The Duncan book about Independent Royal Arch Lodge No. 2 only shows one date because he received all three degrees on that date. You'd have to dig into the archives of that lodge to see the original records. The Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Texas, 1837-1857, Vol. I, shows that Williams succeeded Branch T. Archer as Grand Master of Masons in Texas in December 1839. The Ruth Nichols article in the Southwestern Historical Quarterly (p. 210), cited under "Further Reading," states that Willams was "an ardent Mason and Knight Templar, one of the founders of the order in Texas" (so I'm not just making all this up). Also, the Williams biography by Margaret Swett Henson, which is surprisingly not cited under "Further Reading," supports much of the above. I should have cited Henson (pages 82 and 161) to support the statement that Williams received the Masonic degrees and the Knight Templar orders in New York. 
Williams founded the first Royal Arch Chapter in Texas, the first Knight Templar Commandery in Texas, as well as Harmony Lodge No. 6 in Galveston. So, his interest in Freemasonry was a substantial part of his life. Further, Williams served as the third Grand Master of Texas Masons, the first presiding officer of the Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Texas, as well as the Grand Commander of Knights Templar in Texas. Simply removing the entire section on Freemasonry leaves a gaping hole in the biography of a man who was so important to the creation of Freemasonry in Texas. But then, it's only Wikipedia.
Coincidentally, on Saturday, 8 Feb 2020, I will present my paper on Samuel May Williams to a group of New York Masons who are meeting in Washington, DC. 
I am sorry that I am not more proficient in meeting the requirements of Wikipedia. But, it seems to me that it would be better to have volunteers that assist in getting sections like this up to speed, rather than simply deleting them.PGNormand (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

PGNormand, First, let me apologize for getting over-excited. It's good that you are interested in improving Wikipedia articles, and I can help you with how Wikipedia uses sources. If it works for you, can we can work together to rebuild the content related to his Freemasonry? Perhaps after you give your speech in Washington? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I would be happy to do whatever it takes to make those corrections. I see now that there are some citations that I should have used but did not. PGNormand (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
PGNormand, I was too harsh. Best of luck with your lecture and we will build the article when you get back. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I recommend we hold off nominating for FA until we are finished with this piece.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I am postponing the nomination indefinitely. I am also realizing that I may not have used the Cartwright book to its potential and I am re-reading it now. (Which also led me to a huge distraction regarding fellow Galvestonian, Gail Borden, of Elsie the Cow fame, who is a treasure trove of "Did you know?")Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm copying these questions so we can keep the larger discussion in one area, and in particular I hope PGNormand can help with the first query:
First, what was the main purpose of Williams' New York/Washington D.C. journey in 1835? Had he gone there specifically for his Freemasonry initiation, or was he there for business purposes and participated in the Freemasonry rituals on the side? The sources may not say, but for me this is a hole in the narrative. I know very, very little about Freemasonry, but isn't that an awfully quick ascension through the ranks? If so, was it because he had accomplished much for Freemasonry already in Texas, or did he possibly buy his way up?

I cannot say from the perspective from the Freemasonry sources, but there is a consensus of the other sources that Williams traveled to the east coast of the US in order to promote his bank. I'll defer on the other parts of this question.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
According to Henson's biography, Williams left Texas because the Mexican government had issued an arrest warrant for him, because of his participation in the Federalist legislature at Monclova. Also, Henson states that Williams went to the East Coast to sell stock in his bank, but became an agent for supplying the Texian Army (Henson, 79). It was while he was in New York City that he was able to petition Independent Royal Arch Lodge No. 2 for the three degrees, and then Morton Commandery for the Orders of Knighthood (Henson, 82; Lightfoot, 10). Lightfoot also tells us that Williams received the degrees of Jerusalem Royal Arch Chapter No. 8 on 25 November 1835, before he received the Orders of Knighthood (Lightfoot, 10) (That makes sense, because the degrees of the Royal Arch chapter are a prerequisite for Knight Templar.) Granted, it was a bit unusual to get all three degrees of the lodge in one day, but dispensations of that sort were often given for men in his predicament, as he had limited time in the city. The same is true today, and dispensations like that are given to men in the military getting ready to ship out to a foreign destination. Lodge officials would have been well aware of the outbreak of war in Texas, and that Williams was important to that cause. It was not that unusual for anyone to progress to the Royal Arch degrees and the Orders of Knighthood shortly after becoming a 3rd Degree Mason in the lodge. Normally, men might take it slower, but Williams had limited time. He was not "ascending through the ranks." He was just becoming a rank and file member of all three bodies (lodge, chapter and commandery). It was pure coincidence that the national triennial conventions of both the General Grand Chapter of the Royal Arch and the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar were held in Washington, DC, the following month, December 1835. (Henson, 82) That allowed Williams to petition for and receive charters for San Felipe Royal Arch Chapter No. 1 and San Felipe de Austin Commandery No. 1 (Knights Templar). (Henson, 82) However, Henson does not name these two bodies by name. But, we know their names because they still exist and meet actively in Galveston. Also, San Felipe Royal Arch Chapter No. 1 is listed by name by Lightfoot. (Lightfoot, 10) It also appears in the 1835 Proceedings of the General Grand Chapter, Royal Arch Masons (p. 133). I hope that gives a better perspective on Williams Masonic activities during November and December 1835.PGNormand (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, Oldsanfelipe2 mentions on my talk page and the peer review that Williams gets very little respect from Texas historians and locals (although he has a statue at the Hall of State, as mentioned in the article). I think a paragraph should be added to the "Death and legacy" section which addresses this, at the least we should include Cartwright's note regarding the resentment held by Galveston folk. Why? I think this would help the "comprehensive" part of the article. From a historical standpoint the article covers Williams very well, but if possible there should be more material on his legacy, i.e. would the Texas revolution have succeeded without his involvement (pro/con), more about why he was disliked because of the land grants and his association with the Monclova government.

I had discounted Cartwright's version because it seemed like he had an axe to grind. I am looking at ways to work this in, and I am re-evaluating his book now.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Can we give more context the the motivations of those seeking to dissolve Williams' bank? 

Americans and Texans distrusted banks in the Jacksonian era. Part of it was a distrust of paper currency. We definitely need to flesh this out.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Did Williams suffer (or prosper) financially regarding his bank following the post-1857 climate? 

Yes, and Henson suggests that this may have broken him psychologically and physically.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Those all sound like excellent ways to improve the article!  I hope adding some "human interest" to the article doesn't muddy things up.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there any way to tell the date of the Williams house photo?  I doubt it appears that way today, so it would be nice to say "Williams house pictured in 19xx"  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Good question. I cannot find a date in any of the online documentation from the Library of Congress.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything here that isn't found in Henson's other works?  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The article cites this book eight times: Henson (1992). Samuel May Williams House does not cite this book, though.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
D'oh!  I was looking for a 2013 date (republication).  Thanks!  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@PGNormand:@78.26:: I restored all of the text from the Freemasonry section, though I moved it under the Personal life section. I think I have cleaned up most of the WP:OR, but I there is still one source I have not looked at. I tried to avoid rephrasing, since I am unfamiliar with the subject matter. I am going to let this version of the article linger for awhile, just in case there are objections. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Uh, just a note:  It says he served a second term in 1882-83, but he'd been dead 25 years.  That's a pretty neat accomplishment, do you have an extraordinarily reliable source for that?    I'm guessing that should be 1852-53, no?  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@PGNormand:@Oldsanfelipe2:  Okaaaayyy...  The source lists an "S. M. Williams" at both the 1850 and 1882 dates.  It's not a typo in the text.  So either this is an entirely different person, or else the source is discussing two separate people with similar names.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Egad! I was not watching the dates at the end. Nothing like a fresh set of eyes and a brain to match. IIRC, Williams had a son named Samuel May Williams, and the masons have in the past had strong tendencies to favor legacies. I have not read the family history very carefully, but I suspect our SMW had a slew of ancestors who were masons, which would explain how he could move through the ranks so quickly. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Oldsanfelipe2: You are correct. Williams did have a son with the same name, but the boy died as an infant. (It turns out that the second "S. M. Williams" was also named "Samuel May Williams," lived from 1844 to 1918, but was a son of Mathew R. Williams. I sm sorry about that, I wasn't paying attention to the death date of our Samuel May Williams.) Please let me know if I need to provide any more citations. I regret that the Lightfoot article is now on the Wayback Machine. However, I did learn that it was also published separately. PGNormand (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@PGNormand: Sorry I took so long to get back to you. We both overlooked the same error. In my case, I think I was trying to do too much and continued to edit when I was mentally fatigued. My takeaway is that I need to know when to walk away. If I may offer some advice and some assistance...part of editing Wikipedia is learning the nuance of the policy against original research: WP:OR. You are very knowledgeable about Freemasonry, which is both an asset and a potential liability. On the asset side, you know how to find the sources and you understand their terminology, making it easier for you to do the research. On the liability side, you may know things about Freemasonry that cannot be confirmed by reliable secondary sources, and you you may be tempted to include such information. That does not make them any less true or less factual, but it makes them less verifiable. So please keep in mind that the standard is writing according to what the cited sources say, and not based on what you know. There will be many opportunities to add material about Freemasonry within biographies Texans from the 19th century. As I am sure that you know, there was a lot of Freemasonry activity in Houston and Galveston: the author of one of the books you cited, Archibald St. Clair Ruthven, was a long-time resident of Houston. Should you be interested in editing other Texas-based articles, I can be your second set of eyes, if you think that would be helpful. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Oldsanfelipe2: Thank you for the comment about "original research." I completely understand, and I can see where that would be a problem. I've been a Masonic researcher and writer since about 1980. I was editor for Texas Lodge of Research in the late 1980s, editor of American Masonic Review (a national newsletter) in the early 1990s, and editor of The Plumbline, the newsletter for the Scottish Rite Research Society at Washington, DC, for ten years from the mid-1990s into the 2000s. So, as a result, I often lose sight of the fact that most basic information about the fraternity is not generally known to outsiders. I have to force myself to talk down to the reader and overexplain things. Further, what the general public often accepts as common knowledge about Freemasonry is in fact the opposite of what is true. That is frustrating, and that is where I include explanatory information that is not in the source cited. I constantly remind myself that I am writing about two different fraternities:  One is the actual fraternity, with its own history – the one that I know and experience on a day-to-day basis. The other fraternity is a purely fictional fraternity that exists only in the minds of conspiracy theorists, anti-Masons, and cable channel programs about "the secrets of Freemasonry." But, unfortunately, that is the fraternity that most readers know about, and mentally bring with them when they read an article that includes information about the Masonic activities of someone like Samuel May Williams. All this means that I have to keep up with two different conflicting histories, sets of terminology, and two different stories. As for A.S. Ruthven, and others, I'm not really looking for early Texans in order to add their Masonic activities to their biographies. I did this for Samuel May Williams because I had written a paper about him for presentation to the members of New York's Independent Royal Arch Lodge No. 2. I was a bit surprised that, with his heavy involvement in early Texas Freemasonry, that there was no mention of Freemasonry in his article. From my perspective, it was almost like writing an article about Sam Houston without mentioning that he was a President of the Republic. But, I appreciate your offer to be my second set of eyes. I really need that. Thank you.PGNormand (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe2: Thank you for adding the effect the court battles had on Williams, personally.  I think the relevant paragraph should be tweaked.  It's all factually accurate, but he paragraph starts with "Early in 1859" which was the date of the court decision, of course.  However, to the causal reader it may appear that Williams' death was a result of this decision, when in fact the decision came after his death.  Is there perhaps a way to re-order the paragraph, or perhaps indicate that Williams forecast the disastrous (for himself had he lived, and for his bank) decision?  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@78.26: Does this fix it? [6] Thanks, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Oldsanfelipe2:, yes, I think it does.  Great work, as usual.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@78.26: @Kaiser matias: I finally listed Samuel May Williams as a FAN: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel May Williams/archive1. Please note the changes in the Freemasonry and Death and legacy sections. Thanks for your excellent criticisms and suggestions for improving the article. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Sorry for not being around recently, but I should be back now. Will definitely add something at FAC. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for your careful reading and review of Samuel May Williams at FAC. I am currently unable to respond to your comments in a substantive manner, but I understand the need to archive the nomination and work on the article outside the FAC process. I would welcome any assistance with improving the article going forward. Thanks again for your work. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi -- I'd be happy to help, though at any given time I don't know how quickly I'll be able to respond -- e.g. if I have other reviews going on.  For example, right now I have a commitment at Talk:Pekarangan, but the editor there only posts intermittently.  But when you decide to come back to this, ping me, and I'll help if I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)