Talk:Jourdan Saunders

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that slave trader Jourdan Saunders greatly profited from a Louisiana law banning slave trading? Source: Rothman, Joshua D. (May 2022). "The American Life of Jourdan Saunders, Slave Trader". Journal of Southern History. 88 (2): https://muse.jhu.edu/article/854859, pp. 243-244
  • Reviewed: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Cherry_blossom

Moved to mainspace by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 08:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jourdan Saunders; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• New enough and long enough. QPQ present. Hook fact checks out to source (mentions he made more money than anticipated, too). No textual issues in the article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jourdan Saunders/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Ghosts of Europa (talk · contribs) Looking forward to reviewing another of your articles (notwithstanding the depressing subject matter) 05:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Stable
• Neutral
• No copyvio concerns (5% match on Earwig)
• Images are appropriately captioned and licensed
  • Nitpick: I'm not sure the New Orleans picture adds much to the article, especially next to a sentence about Saunders not selling slaves there.
    • Fair enough, took it out. - G
      • I think the new image is a good fit and adds useful context.
• On the whole this is well written. However, I confess I found some sections hard to follow, especially the Fraudulent Trade in Louisiana section. I don't know much about this period of history, and the article often uses passive voice, making it unclear who exactly is doing what:
  • The whereabouts of the escaped slave had been discovered the day before setting sail, and Saunders hired agents to attempt to capture the fugitive in order to recuperate some of his continued financial losses. - Was this attempted capture successful?
    • Sources don't say, unfortunately. -G
  • Despite urging of caution, Saunders continued making large purchases of slaves, having sent 17 slaves to Franklin & Armfield by September 1831 - Who urged caution to whom, and about what? Did Franklin tell Saunders to be cautious buying slaves because sales were down?
    • Indeed, clarified this. - G
  • Sales made in Louisiana were passed as ones made in Virginia or Tennessee. - It's not clear what this entailed. Did Saunders lie on a form? The passive voice here sounds awkward, like the article denies him agency.
    • Good point, fixed. - G
  • Slaves could also be sold "at sea", with buyers in New Orleans purchasing the slaves while the ship was en route, thereby introducing their own property into the state, outlined in the legislation as a legal exception - This is in a section titled Fraudulent Trade in Louisiana, but is it actually fraud, or just a loophole?
    • Fair enough. I'll rename the section. - G
  • creating a massive profit which was then used by Saunders - Consider "Saunders earned a massive profit, which he used..."
    • Good fix! - G
  • The ability, albeit temporary, for Franklin & Armfield and their associates to violate the Louisiana legislation created a significant boom greatly capitalized on by Saunders. - I had to read this a few times to realize that "The ability to violate legislation created a boom" was effectively saying "They made money by breaking the law". I think this would be clearer if the subject of the sentence was Franklin & Armfield, not "the ability".
    • Fixed. - G
  • Although the following seasons were less lucrative, Saunders continued to profit from a booming slave market, as significant plantation expansion followed in the wake of Indian removal and the Trail of Tears. An active banking sector allowed for easy access to loans, compounding the number of farmers able to acquire slaves. However, a corresponding rise in competition accompanied the bull market, leading to increasingly high prices for enslaved people in Virginia. However, these were generally outmatched by demand in the Deep South, shipping around a hundred individuals during the 1832–1833 season - I find this whole paragraph hard to follow. It's compressing a lot of history I never learned, and the "x, but y, but z" structure makes me feel like I can't find my footing. In the last sentence, who or what is shipping a hundred people? Saunders? The Deep South?
    • Ooh, yeah. I fixed it up a bit. - G
  • Saunders never formally acknowledged his children, although most of his children received inheritance as part of his will - I'm not sure what this means. Putting children in a will isn't a formal acknowledgment?
    • He put them in his will, but not as his children. Clarified this. - G
• Source spot checks are solid. I noticed a few small things, but otherwise the info in the article is well sourced and I didn't catch any close paraphrasing.
  • 1 - Looks good
  • 3 - The military service looks good
  • 5/6 - Looks good
  • 9/10 - This mostly looks good. The article says he sold six young slaves to Franklin, but the source seems to mention seven ("Four days later, Saunders sold four other young men, a teenaged boy, and two teenaged girls to Isaac Franklin for $3,500 cash")
    • I miscounted - thank you! Fixed. - G
  • 15/16 - Again, this mostly looks good. I'm not seeing support for the deflated prices in Virginia. Sublette quotes him as mentioning "fair prices", not low prices. Rothman quotes him wanting to "reduce the price of slaves in this market", but it's not clear that market was Virginia; it seems like it's either New Orleans or Natchez. Am I missing where this comes from?
    • I assumed fair prices meant fair for the traders here, but you're right that it isn't exactly clear. I don't think he'd be talking about New Orleans, since it seems that they would want prices as high as possible in Louisiana and as low as possible in Virginia. In any case, I tuned down the description of the prices in Virginia. - G
  • 21 - The article says Saunders was A staunch supporter of Andrew Jackson, but the source only mentions his support for one specific policy of Jackson's. This seems like a stretch.
    • Good call, removed "Staunch". - G
  • 23 - Mary Wilkins looks good
  • 27 - Mostly looks good. The source says he died in March, but doesn't specify March 19th. Where does that specific date come from?
    • Ope, that comes from a newspaper obituary I forgot to include. Added. - G

I think you've addressed everything I noticed. If you decide to push this to FAC, I would recommend adding a Background section to provide a bit more historical context, although I don't think that's necessary for GA.

This article is very reliant on a single source, but it's clearly a good source. I didn't find anything else on JSTOR or through Googling, so I can't point to anything you should have used instead. I think this is good for GA.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.