Jump to content

Talk:Dorothy Thomas (entrepreneur)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 19:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Intro and infobox

[edit]
I'm thinking the correct nomenclature at the time for Montserrat would be British Leeward Islands and for Demerara, the official term by the time she died was British Guiana. If those work, then  Done SusunW (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro, 1st paragraph. It seems that in "when Britain abolished slavery she received £ 3,413 for the loss of her labourers." a comma is needed after "slavery"... or if it doesn't create a copy vio issue, "she received £ 3,413 for the loss of her labourers when Britain abolished slavery."
 Done SusunW (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro, 2nd paragraph. I think "insured" should be "ensured".
 Done SusunW (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about a change like "She enjoyed a wide circle of influence among the business" to "She was influential among a wide circle of business"
 Done SusunW (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was it that: "In 1824, she protested a discriminatory law against free women of colour and was successful in having it overturned by the colonial authority."?
 Done SusunW (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the 1st paragraph a bit. Better? SusunW (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! Looks great!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to help keep track, this section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]
  • Perhaps "Dorothy Kirwan was born as a slave around 1756–1763" to something like "Dorothy Kirwan was born as a slave between 1756 and 1763" since it's such a long period of time. If you want to keep the current wording, please change the dash to "to".
 Done SusunW (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first sentence it says that Dolly was owned by the family and then the next sentence it says she was owned by Andrew. - My mistake, mom vs. daughter.
    • Maybe a phrase could be added like, "while Kirwin was specifically owned"... it's up to you, not a big deal.
I tried to figure out which Kirwan owned Betty, but couldn't. My guess would be John, but the Kirwan family operated slaves from Antigua all the way down to Suriname, so which family member is impossible to know, unless one found a specific document. SusunW (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant for that phrase to be used for Dorothy as a segue and to differentiate the two. But it's okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the point about insisting her children have the "correct surnames" that they have the father's surname? (In those times, wouldn't it have been standard for children of an unmarried woman to take the mother's maiden surname?)
In the slave system, children born to a slave would not typically have had a surname. Surnames were only chosen after slavery ended.[1] The fact that she was given one and then took pains to record surnames for her children indicates she understood the importance of them, as a means of tying them into their families. SusunW (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My question was about the word "correct".–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The source says "Dorothy was concerned about recording the correct paternal surnames for her children, and those surnames indicate that each of them had a different white father." Added the word "fathers'"  Done SusunW (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thanks. I got a feeling that my comments were going to come off as especially nit-picky with this article. Thanks for bearing with me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't mind nit-picky if it improves the article and the reader's experience, it's all good. SusunW (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a comma needed after "Following Elizabeth"? It reads better to me without it. "Following Elizabeth, was Catherina Cells, most likely the daughter of the planter John Coesvelt Cells, and Edward Iles, son of the planter Ellis Iles."
 Done SusunW (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by "as well as her own sale from Andrew Kirwan to William Foden." She arranged to be bought by someone else? Who is William Foden?
I couldn't find anything about him. Google results in lots of data about a musician. Apparently Foden was a minor character to history, but huge to Thomas' history, as he manumitted her. My guess is that Kirwan was selling off his property to move to Demerara. As she already had at least one child with Foden (he fathered 2 of her children and he bought her in 1781. He died a year later, so possibly the 2nd child was conceived after the purchase) and rather than go to someone she did not know, my guess is she asked him to buy her and their children, i.e. to keep the family together. The source says "Since Edward appears to have stayed with his mother after this transaction [his manumission], it is a reasonable presumption that Dorothy intervened to have Iles buy the freedom of her youngest child at the same time she arranged for her purchase by William Foden, and that the monies paid by both men actually belonged to her." SusunW (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was thinking if there was more and clearer info, you would have included... just checking.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SusunW (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am generally confused about the discussion of the Fodens from the end of the first paragraph through most of the second paragraph. It seems that something is missing regarding: 1) Why Foden would buy her, 2) why she would want Foden to buy her, and 3) how she had a baby with another man (but he still made a favorable will for her). Really, what it gets down to, if you have the information: What was the nature of the relationship between Foden and Kirwan/Thomas? You are so thorough, I am guessing that this isn't clear in the sources, but if you have or can find any information to clarify this, it would be great.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't answer anything specifically, see the above and my sense of it. As for the 3rd point, Foden died in 1782, she came to have the will proved in 1784—two years later. The child Ann/Nan was an infant so clearly after Foden died she had relations with Joseph Thomas. SusunW (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh. Gotcha! Would you mind if I took a crack at making some edits - and see if that works for you? You can always revert it if it doesn't improve that section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free. It's a confusing situation and hard because there are many partners, children, and locations. I truly suspect that she had one child with Foden and was expecting another when he bought her, but I don't know that. What I do know is that they moved in 1781 and he died the following year, not enough time for him to have fathered two children, so at least one was already born. SusunW (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made changes with this block of edits. I provided more background and tried to tie some things together a bit. See what you think. Does it help? And, would it be safe to say that the freedom of the two eldest daughters occured by 1784 when the will was settled and she had her family members manumitted (if I am reading pages 106 and 107 correctly)?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph break and a minor tweak to the language, but otherwise good. Sources don't say when, but it doesn't make sense she would obtain manumission for her younger children before her older ones, since she was soooooo systematic about making sure they were all free. SusunW (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the sentence "Andrew, in the wake of famine and hurricane damage on Montserrat, was planning to move to Demerara.[5]" have something to do with why Kirwan wanted to be purchased by Foden, if you know?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, yes, but have no proof of that. I tried to find him in Demerara and couldn't. Actually, I find no record, at all of an Andrew Kirwan, but the source is very specific about his name. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for tracking, this section is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada 1787–1799

[edit]
  • I don't know if I am mixing up who are siblings from who are Dorothy's children, but I am getting more than six children. I have been assuming that "Kirwan" refers to Dorothy until the "Demerara 1807–1846" section where she is referred to as "Thomas". Is that right?
Yes, she is Kirwan up until 1808 when she insisted on being called Thomas. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Kirwan always refers to Dorothy -- and never her mother -- then there are more than six children, right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I am seeing, but if I am missing something (entirely possible... I deal with a fair amount of fogginess each day due to a brain injury):
  • "Little is known of her early life before she arrived in Dominica[3] but prior to her arrival she had given birth to three children." Her eldest daughter, Elizabeth Kirwan, was probably sired by Andrew Kirwan or another member of his family. Following Elizabeth was Catherina Cells, most likely the daughter of the planter John Coesvelt Cells, and Edward Iles, son of the planter Ellis Iles.[4]
  • "She and Foden had two children, William and Charlotte Foden,[1] before their father died in 1782.[7]"
  • She was discharged from any debts she might owe him and the will specified that she had paid to him money to manumit herself and her three children, William, Charlotte, and a baby, Ann (also known as Nan), who was the daughter of Joseph Thomas, a minor merchant.[8]
  • "Around 1785–1786, she gave birth to another daughter, Francis "Fanny" Owens, probably the daughter of John Owens, the skipper of Nelly, a sloop co-owned by Foden's former employer, William Barrow.[9][10] "–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She had 11 children (that we know of): Elizabeth Kirwan, Catherina Cells, Edward Iles, William Foden, Charlotte Foden, Ann/Nan Thomas, Fannie Owens, Eliza Thomas, Joseph Thomas, Harry Thomas, and Christina Thomas.
Then, the infobox should be updated from 6 to 11, right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I never looked there.  Done SusunW (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is, perhaps Kirwan should be part of her name in the intro, like "Dorothy Kirwan Thomas"
I added it as an aka, but since her common name was Dorothy Thomas, I don't like to invent a modern way of referencing her with a combined surname she never used. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think "nee" is the correct way to handle it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the top of the article, I see why you didn't use "nee". It would be a bit cludgy. Aka works.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, I see your point about not using it as her middle name... I have been writing about a number of women that used their maiden name in their full name, but they were from well-to-do families where it explained their heritage. A name should not be changed to something that isn't used in the sources. I agree with you there! Thanks for holding firm on something you don't find to be right.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SusunW (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep track, this section is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados 1799–1807

[edit]
  • Was John Owens the father of Henrietta or Dorothy's daughter Fannie? I am assuming Henrietta, but "her" is already used twice in the sentence referring to Dorothy.
Owens was the father of Fannie. Added Kirwan's daughter  Done SusunW (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the phrase "Immigration of free coloured people was also increasing from throughout the British West Indies" - Is the point that people were immigrating to Barbados from places throughout the British West Indies? I am trying to figure out why "from" is in the sentence.
The point is that people were immigrating to Demerara from various of the British West Indies isles. Added "to Demerara"  Done SusunW (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SusunW (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to help keep track, this section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demerara 1807–1846

[edit]

Nothing but really minor things here:

Very cool! I love when we can expand our coverage and links. SusunW (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Want a red link for Cumingsburg, too? It would link to two articles.
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I love that you wrote this one. I had it on a "to do" list :) SusunW (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really enjoyed writing it... and it linked to far more than three articles when I realized that it was generally called "Kensington House" and not "Kensington House Academy" and had a number of uses. It brought in a number of interesting people. It would be cool to learn more about Louis-Philippe's interaction with the school (teacher? what does usher means? etc.) and add the info about Sala and Thomas sending children there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit about it in Candlin/Pybus. I'll expand it a bit. SusunW (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think italics are needed for a place named Cumingsburg. Is there a reason why it is in italics that I might not be thinking of?
removed  Done (I usually italicize names of houses and plantations, as that is how I was taught to do it, but WP MOS is silent on it as far as I can tell).
  • Side comment: I really like the way you describe the role of hucksters.
Thanks, I didn't understand it and I'm a history buff, so I figured most people wouldn't either. I try to make things clear for the reader, though it isn't always possible. SusunW (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • May be totally a style thing... What do you think about "Local newspapers reported on her activities of purchasing and selling properties" being changed to something like "Local newspapers reported on her purchases and sales of properties"
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "In 1820"
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to help keep track, this section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]

Mostly really minor things here, too

  • Link Apocryphal to Apocrypha or wikt:Apocryphal? (I think in terms of someone in 5th grade or higher reading the article, so it's a thing of mine to link words that a 5th grader might not understand, but that's a personal thought process... not necessary.)
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe "21st century" should have a dash. See MOS:CENTURY.
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side comment: love the "Historical significance" section, lovely.
SusunW (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please link Madame Sala, and I am do not think her name needs to be in single quotes. Perhaps I am missing something?
Switched link and removed quotes. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it make sense to state that Henrietta was married to Augustus John James Sala?
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
who knew?  Done SusunW (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of family information in the Family section - and it starts to get a little confusing who her children are, versus others. What do you think about keeping sibling and children information in the body of the Family section and putting the nieces, nephews, and grandchildren info in notes?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rearranged the paragraphs a bit. Does that help? SusunW (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That helps a lot!
One final comment: "returned to England nullifying their marriage" seems like it needs a comma after "England" (i.e., it was the return to England that nullified the marriage), right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot more complicated than that, but yes, he returned to England and they never formally married. I've changed it to say he reneged on the contract. (I didn't realize that is what happened when I wrote Dorothy, but Christina left him, he returned to England, they never formalized the contract. I wondered if he paid her the 2000 for not doing it. My guess is not). SusunW (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep track, this section is  Done

Citations

[edit]

How about a "|2" or "|30em" etc. parameter to create two columns?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. On my screen it is 30em and in two columns? SusunW (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how funny! I scrunched the zoom level and I got two columns. Magic!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep track, this section is  Done

GA Criteria

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Yes, and a very interesting article!
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Comments

[edit]
 Done SusunW (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side comment: I thought it was interesting that you used the word "buried" when talking about keeping quiet about her true religious leaning... but she literally buried her religion when her children were buried in Anglican church cemeteries. (Enterprising Women, p. 112) Cool writing on your part!
I love irony SusunW (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally up to you: Does it make sense to add a comment about why the white husbands would be strapped: war, type of businesses that incurred debt, perhaps piracy, etc. - it's not that they were ne'er-do-wells. (Enterprising Women, p. 115)–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I added a final sentence to the 3rd paragraph. "The sons-in-law were subject to accruing debt to secure merchandise for overseas trade and ran the risk of having shipments seized by privateers during periods of war; whereas Thomas' income was stable and property based".
That is really lovely!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a really interesting article to read! Another audacious women who made the most of her life and created her own opportunities. Smart woman! Great job on the article!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have truly enjoyed this year's black history month. Found so many fascinating women who overcame slave roots. SusunW (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! The article is passed. Congratulations on yet another really interesting article! You did a really great job.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much CaroleHenson. I really enjoy working with you. Your comments and perspective on events make me look at things in a different way and I think there is no doubt that our collaboration improved the article. Truly appreciate your thoroughness. SusunW (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, too, SusunW! You are a joy to work with. If you have another article you'd like me to review, when you are ready, let me know. In the meantime, I started on article about Cummingsburg. And, I want to take some of the images in Kensington House (academy) from the external media and upload them. I am just a bit nervous about uploading non-USA images.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, I often ask Victuallers about UK images, he knows far more about them than I. I didn't ping him on this article, but will on Kensington House article. SusunW (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks so much, SusunW!!! I don't want to misconstrue the UK copyright law. It's made me nervous.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say, I enjoyed reading through everyone's suggestions and comments. The series of articles relating to Thomas are quite fascinating. Makes me wonder about other "untold" histories that remain to be uncovered. TJMSmith (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TJMSmith my husband's comment when I read the article to him was that all those academics who claim women just aren't in the historic record aren't trying very hard. This was an illiterate woman, who left a paper trail on 3 continents, significant enough to produce 3 articles. I am sure there are millions of similar untold stories. I do find them totally fascinating, and tenacious, and fearless. SusunW (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorothy_Thomas_(entrepreneur)/GA1&oldid=967071222"