Talk:Martha Washington/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SusunW (talk · I'll take this one. Please bear with me, as my real life is fairly complicated at the moment, but I am looking forward to working with you again. Feel free to question me on any comments, but ping me, as I may or may not see responses even though they are on my watchlist. contribs) 14:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

I think you need to specify that her DOB is according to the Julian calendar, particularly because that is specified in her husband's article (and Diller & Robinson, p. 197 say "Scholars disagree about Martha Washington’s actual birth date".) We know it was according to the Julian, as Cary says "the following is a register of their children and some of their grandchildren, copied exactly from the Henley family Bible…" (p. 33). i.e. as they were recorded at the time of events and the calendar did not change until 1752.
I designated it with O.S., but honestly I have no idea if that's correct. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. SusunW (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not relevant, but I wondered, so maybe others will, Watson p 9 says it was a tobacco plantation.
Her father was also a county clerk – article; "He also served as county clerk" – source. Fairly close paraphrasing. Perhaps rephrase the above sentence, i.e. John Dandridge, a county clerk and Virginia planter, who emigrated from England, citing both Watson and Schneider?
Claims of Native ancestry, and particularly Cherokee descent should always be questioned, and attributed to who said it – especially if they claim ancestry to a chief or Cherokee princess, as in this case. Bryan p. 24 says it came from a Congressional report. The report written by M. B. Goodwin (his name is on p. 300) made the claim on page 203. I also note that Wiencek says (in equally offensive language) "The mother of Ann Dandridge was an Indian squaw of the Pamunkey tribe below Richmond" (E-book so no way to cite the page but you can input in place of "p=" "loc= (Search phrase "Pamunkey")}}" and attributes it to a statement made by Elizabeth Van Lew in 1860. As the claims conflict, I think we have to include both.
How relevant is this info, in your opinion? Generally when I'm writing a biography, I only include relatives in the early life section if they were immediately relevant to the subject's childhood, as beyond that seems like trivia. I was tempted to remove this whole paragraph, which was there before I found this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it is relevant. Miscegenation was really common in slave society, but it is often pushed under the rug. If we are going to mention her other siblings, NPOV requires that we mention her half- and step-siblings, I think. But that's only my thoughts, and worth little. SusunW (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To compromise, I've retained the potential existence of the half-siblings but removed the bit based on questionable sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That totally works for me. SusunW (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks show no issues with sourcing.

All issues clear SusunW (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage to Daniel Parke Custis

While her father had owned 15 to 20 slaves, her husband owned nearly 300, making him one of the largest slaveowners and wealthiest men in the Virginia colony – article; "Although her father owned only fifteen to twenty slaves, her first husband, Daniel Parke Custis, owned nearly three hundred, making him one of the wealthiest men in the Virginia colony" – source, is very similar. Can you rephrase?
link one third of his estate to dower

All issues cleared SusunW (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage to George Washington

Custis, age 27…about his proposal is not verified in Schulte, as cited.
The couple honeymooned is not verified in Schulte, I note that Bryan discusses 2 pre-marital visits p 88-89 and the honeymoon at White House on p. 124
A representative of what? Schneider p. 3 says of the Virginia Assembly, except that body was called at the time the House of Burgesses, which needs to be specified, IMO.
before setting up house isn't confirmed in Schulte, but Brady p. 6 or Schneider p 3 confirm.
Washington's husband used her wealth to buy additional land and slaves; he more than tripled the size of Mount Vernon (2,650 acres (10.7 km2) in 1757; 8,251 acres (33.39 km2) in 1787) is not supported in either of the citations. They talk about buying 40 more slaves, but I see no discussion of land?

All addressed. SusunW (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolution

The revolution was the first time in their marriage that they were apart for an extended period is not supported in Boller, but it is by Brady, p 6.
risks he faced he who? In a new paragraph you need to identify the noun before replacing it with a pronoun.
Each winter, Washington …We left her in Philadelphia, was she still there? Schneider p. 5 says after the October 1776 loss by the Americans in the New York and New Jersey campaign, Washington returned to Mount Vernon to oversee the plantation. Perhaps you should move up the statement below Each spring, when conflict resumed, she returned to Mount Vernon to here so it doesn’t appear she was still in Philly?
Insert link for Idzerda
Drinker described her Source citation doesn't indicate which volume (there were 3) of the 1991 publication that the quote was from. 1994 abridged edition, shows the quote on p 75. Unless you have access to note which volume, might be better to change the citation to allow verification.
Can't see the citation about the adoption in Yates (appears on pp 38-39, per search, but not available in limited view); however, note discrepancy with Brady p. 7, which says it was not a formal adoption.
Washington, now in poorer health is on p 6, not p 7

All items cleared SusunW (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First lady of the United States

She hosted many affairs of state at New York City and Philadelphia during their years as temporary capitals. isn't verified in Griswold that I can find. It does appear in Boler, p. 6
The social circles that developed among those in American politics became known as the Republican Court no definition of Republican court on p. 163 and the quote in the citation doesn’t define it either (quote isn't on 163, but is found on p 165). This defines it on page 172, which makes it clear that it wasn't a political gathering. The term referred to Martha's Salon (gathering). Brady, p 9 and Caroli p 5 make it clearer, Tuesday afternoons the president received men at a Levee (ceremony), Thursdays were reserved for dinner parties for foreign visitors or government officials and their kin, and Fridays were Martha's coed salons. Seems to me as if the bit about Republican Court should move down to the next paragraph and the state functions she hostessed should be in this one. (We know she was hostess at the Tuesday affairs because of Feinberg, p 19.
After so within three days, consider inputting something about the fact that the calls were official, i.e. Caroli, p 7 says they were made to ensure that they contacted people who could not fit into her husband's schedule.

Need to break here, but will return. SusunW (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the changes you made to the section. SusunW (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

Market street , Caroli verifies Market street, but Brady says on p 10, High Street?
The Washingtons' self-imposed limits were about personal not state involvement and about going out, as opposed to hosting, i.e. Brady says "strictures against accepting private invitations were informally relaxed."
Being a devout Episcopalian, she also attended church regularly – article; A devoted Episcopalian, Martha regularly attended church…" – source. Can you rephrase?
When Washington learned that her husband may take, may should be might, i.e. past tense, she had learned, so verb agreement requires might.
declined to participate in private events see above, this was temporary. Perhaps reshuffle is in order?
encouraging aristocracy, cite says Beasley 27-29, but I find on 29-30.

Good to go. SusunW (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later life and death

In December 1800, she signed a deed of manumission not verified on p. 9 of Peter's Journal, the section about her own dower slaves appears in the Notes section, p 9 as Note #7 and says she manumitted "all the slaves she held in her own right" in 1801. Says nothing about his. P 2 (of the text) in his will says only when she dies his slaves shall be free. December 1800 statement is verified in George Washington and Slavery, but I don’t think you can leave out the part that she set them free because they were setting fires and she was afraid. It wasn't out of the goodness of her heart, so to speak, and it might seem POV to not include it. I also think that Peter’s Journal is likely incorrect, as it conflicts with both the George Washington and Slavery and Martha Washington and Slavery articles which clearly show in 1801 she freed his slaves and that she never freed her dower slaves (or the one she owned outright) but willed them to her grandchildren, which needs to be in the article.
Washington took offense might be difficult to verify in Schneider, she does obliquely state Jefferson was in the executive mansion, but not outright that he was president, or whether it means serving or visiting. Perhaps use Boller, p. 8, which is more explicit that it was him as president.

Thanks for these corrections. IMO better now and without the problematic source. SusunW (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

preserved in archives perhaps add "such as at Mount Vernon and the Virginia Historical Society". (I always want to know where someone's papers can be consulted, but maybe other people don't.)
Waymarking.com does not appear to be a curated site. This is a better RS for Martha Washington Inn.
Washington's honor in 1905 Can't verify statement in the source, but This shows it opened in October 1905.
The first U.S. postage stamp honoring an American woman honored to remove redundant honor, perhaps postage stamp of an American woman? Also link does not go to the stamp series, but a main search page; however, the correct link is here and should be cited after An 8-cent stamp, it was printed in violet-black ink.
The second stamp link is also to a main search page. Searching author Juell, I don't find a link by him that verifies the information. This, no author given, says 1923 stamp was yellow (not orange) and brown. This article by Juell, does not contain the color, but says it was the next one bearing her likeness.
Link about 1938 stamp also goes to the main search page. Cannot find any article by Jeff Shapiro. Need a working link that verifies 1 ½ cents and color.

All cleared. Thanks for fixing all the links. SusunW (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Appear to be to RS except as noted above. If you are planning to take this to FA they need to be more consistent in both citation style (some places you list pp=x-y in the text and others as rp|x-y) and format, i.e. Title case per MOS, some isbn # missing (Chernow for example), 10 and 13-digit formats are used, publishers and publishing locations are sometimes given and sometimes not, etc.

Checklist

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

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Thebiguglyalien Thank you for your work on this article. You are to be commended for the depth you have given her story. I know it looks like a lot of comments, but I think you know by now I do a comprehensive review always assuming you will take it to FA. I'm willing to discuss anything. (For the record, not sure of my schedule tomorrow. My husband has a follow-up appointment to his surgery.) Please ping me when you are ready for me to review or answer something. SusunW (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've made all of the changes, and I've also added a new image under "First lady of the United States". I get the general sense that we're supposed to preserve as much as possible when doing major rewrites or expansions, which makes it a bit frustrating that most of these sourcing issues are from before I found the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW I always forget to ping. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien The new image licensing looks fine as do the corrections and clarifications. IMO, make it easy on yourself. Maybe I do it wrong, but I only preserve information that is verifiable. If the source or the info in the article doesn't meet our guidelines, I remove it. If it seems really important, I try to find verification, but as I am responsible for what I write, or for what is submitted to be reviewed, I make sure, or as sure as I am able, that it is sound. Good job on your first ladies' quest. Congrats! Passing this one now. SusunW (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]