Jump to content

Talk:David Gillespie (surveyor)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen talk 03:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Source: Battle, Kemp Plummer (1907). History of the University of North Carolina: from its Beginning to the Death of President Swain, 1789–1868 (PDF). Vol. I. Raleigh, North Carolina: Edwards & Broughton Printing Company. p. 77 – via the Wikimedia Foundation.
Created by Aneirinn (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Aneirinn (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  •  : Article is new enough, and long enough, and predominantly soured with public domain content so no apparent copyright issues. However, I find none of the hooks interesting to a wide audience (an increasingly common issue with DYK). And despite the article title, no reliable sources seem to use the middle initial "B.": where does this come from? And spot checking sources, Battle 1890 does not seem to have a page 170, nor mention David Gillespie anywhere. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I originally used the wrong book as the source. The source I was using had combined the two books in one pdf and I had missed that. Also, concerning his middle name, I suppose you are saying that "Death at Red Springs". The Weekly Star. Vol. XXIX. Wilmington, North Carolina: North Carolina Newspapers, Digital North Carolina. June 10, 1898. p. 1. is not a reliable source for this? If so, could you please clarify if that is correct? Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that newspaper obit (including its earlier printing on June 5, 1898) is the only source using "B", and no scholar has used it since, then it's most likely a one-off error (typos, misspellings, and incorrect info is common in short obits from the time): note there was a Dr. David B(ryson) Gillespie of Bladen County who died in 1905 mentioned in NC newspapers, and may have caused conflation. Find a Grave uses the middle B, but it's an unreliable user-generated source and the tombstone image does not corroborate it. Since David Gillespie (politician) already exists, David Gillespie (surveyor) or David Gillespie (American politician) may be more appropriate titles in line with predominant form of name. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. David B. Gillespie (February 24, 1815–January 2, 1905), who attended the Medical College of South Carolina, [Source:Catalogue of the Students Attending Lectures in the Medical College of the State of South Carolina, Session 1837–'38. Charleston: James S. Burges, 85 East-Bay. 1838. p. 6 – via Medical University of South Carolina, Waring Historical Library.] was a son of Major David B. Gillespie. [Source:"Descendants of David Gillespie" (PDF). NCGenWeb.] I think it is likely that the writer of the twice-published obituary wrote 'Major' David B. Gillespie for a reason, and that Dr. David B Gillespie is named after his father, which would have them both with middle names that start with the letter 'B'. This point of contention is not really an issue; however, I find it hard to believe that people would find the initial proposal or ALT1 dull or uninteresting. It is significant and interesting that, according to Kemp P. Battle, David B. Gillespie was the first person granted a document in the form of a diploma from the University of North Carolina, the oldest public university to confer degrees in the United States. This would also make David B. Gillespie the first person in the United States to receive a document in the form of a diploma from a public university. If more alternative hooks are necessary, I'm willing to provide additional options. Aneirinn (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3: ... that the first person granted a document in the form of a diploma from the University of North Carolina, the oldest public university to confer degrees in the United States, was David Gillespie?
Sources: Battle, Kemp Plummer (1907). History of the University of North Carolina: from its Beginning to the Death of President Swain, 1789–1868 (PDF). Vol. I. Raleigh, North Carolina: Edwards & Broughton Printing Company. p. 77 – via the Wikimedia Foundation.
Kapur, Geeta N. (2021). To Drink from the Well: The Struggle for Racial Equality at the Nation's Oldest Public University. Durham, North Carolina: Blair/Carolina Wren Press. ISBN 9781949467529 – via Stanford University Libraries.
ALT4: ... that David Gillespie was the first person granted a document in the form of a diploma from the University of North Carolina, the oldest public university to confer degrees in the United States?
Sources: Battle, Kemp Plummer (1907). History of the University of North Carolina: from its Beginning to the Death of President Swain, 1789–1868 (PDF). Vol. I. Raleigh, North Carolina: Edwards & Broughton Printing Company. p. 77 – via the Wikimedia Foundation.
Kapur, Geeta N. (2021). To Drink from the Well: The Struggle for Racial Equality at the Nation's Oldest Public University. Durham, North Carolina: Blair/Carolina Wren Press. ISBN 9781949467529 – via Stanford University Libraries.
@Aneirinn: What does this need an additional reviewer for that @Animalparty: can't do themself?--Launchballer 18:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Launchballer, thank you for your response to this and my apologies for abandoning my nomination for Red Brown (politician). I had not realized that only prose characters are counted for the 5x expansion requirement. To answer your question, it seems as if the primordial reviewer has abandoned this nomination. I should also note that an additional source for the initial of the subject's middle name has been added to the article. Aneirinn (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever source you were using for his middle name, you weren't citing it, so I've taken it out. I am happy to take over this review, except I don't find any of the hooks interesting either (ALTs 3 and 4 are bloated versions of ALTs 0 and 1 and ALT2 is just confusing).--Launchballer 06:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are currently citing his middle name to Weeks (1887). I don't see where his initial appears in that source.--Launchballer 06:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citations for this in the lead are unnecessary per MOS:LEAD. Two sources cited in the body of the article mention the initial of his middle name. One even has it written in its title. Saying it "fails verification" is a bit outside of the box here, so I have returned it. I changed one word on ALT2, hopefully it is an improvement at the very least. Aneirinn (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His initial isn't in the body anywhere.--Launchballer 07:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why must it be? Aneirinn (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V. The lead is only allowed to be unreferenced if all its content is backed up in the body. As written, it would deserve {{not verified in body}}, which would disqualify it here.--Launchballer 07:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am entirely at odds with the previous sentence. MOS:NAME says "The most complete name should appear at the beginning of the article to provide maximum information. Inclusion of middle names or initials... can be a useful form of disambiguation if there is more than one person known by that name." Which is the case here. MOS:LEAD supports the status quo. Would you please quote how WP:V supports that? It also mentions, "A source 'directly supports' a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of WP:NOR. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material." Aneirinn (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aneirinn: Launchballer is correct that the material needs to be either cited in the lead or mentioned and cited in the body. The paragraph of WP:V says only that there might exist a source that directly supports the material, which isn't relevant here. For DYK purpose, the material does need to be verifiable to its source in the article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you theleekycauldron, I have updated the article. Aneirinn (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aneirinn: Apologies for dropping this. This needs a new hook; ALT2 is still confusing, and they will have your guts for garters at WT:DYK with any open-ended first hook.--Launchballer 07:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT5: ... that David Gillespie was the chief surveyor for the United States boundary commission after the 1795 Treaty of San Lorenzo with Spain?
Sources: Holmes, Jack D. L. (April 1966). "The Southern Boundary Commission, the Chattahoochee River, and the Florida Seminoles, 1799". The Florida Historical Quarterly. 44 (4): 312–337. JSTOR 30147229.
ALT6: ... that David Gillespie became the chief surveyor of the United States boundary commission after the first surveyor was considered to be "insufferably arrogant"?
Sources: McReynolds, Edwin C. (1957). The Seminoles. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 35–6. LCCN 57-11198 – via Google Books. Aneirinn (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT5 doesn't strike me as WP:DYKINTeresting. ALT6 shows more promise, however the hook adds quote marks and the article doesn't and it would need an end-of-sentence citation in any event. I'd also lose "following ... Spain" per WP:DYKTRIM. (I believe MOS:CONFORM would allow some variant of "that David Gillespie became chief surveyor for the United States boundary commission due to the "insufferable arrogance" of his predecessor", but I'd love a second opinion on that.)--Launchballer 11:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the article to add quotations and edited ALT6, hopefully this is permissible now. Aneirinn (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source says he was still in post in 1798 and I don't think the hook should include it anyway.--Launchballer 09:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 1798 is right. I took it out of the hook. Aneirinn (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be fine now.--Launchballer 14:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Gillespie_(surveyor)&oldid=1245767606"