Talk:Mary Hayley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Carabinieri (talk · contribs) 23:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

Hi, Thanks for all the work you've put into this article. I think we can get this passed fairly quickly. I've made a few edits, mainly copyediting, but feel free to revert anything you disagree with. I think the article was a little inconsistent in the national variety of English it used. Since this is more of a British than an American topic, I tried to switch everything to British English, but I'm not sure I've succeeded. I just have a few questions.

According to whom was she kind-hearted but opinionated? I think this should probably be attributed to someone.

I cannot attribute something to someone if the source doesn't say. It seems to have been "general knowledge" as she is often described as having "brimstone qualities" pg. 293 pg 6, headstrong pg. 298 "kind at heart but destitute of self-control"pg. 293..."had no restraint upon her observations" pg. 307 SusunW (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't a year of death given for Heaton? Is it unknown? If so, I'd suggest simply adding a (1727 - ?) so the information will follow the pattern used for all the other siblings.

Done SusunW (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the second paragraph of the "Early life" section, I wondered what age she was when these things were taking place.

No idea. Source does not give an age, nor do any of the other sources that relay the same information. Clearly old enough to order a coachman to drive her there, but speculation on her age would be original research. SusunW (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add a brief explanation what the Old Bailey is? Was it the main or only criminal court in London at the time? If so, maybe add that?

I have no idea. The article has a link to the article on Old Bailey if people want to know about it, but seems to me that it is irrelevant what kind of court it was or if it was the only such courthouse (none of the sources relating to Hayley indicate what type of court it was). Criminal or civil, the point is that it was an unseemly activity for a lady in her time period. This says felonies, i.e. crimes for which the death penalty could be imposed were tried there. So I have added a sentence to that effect, citing that source. SusunW (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are those quotations in that paragraph from Hayley herself?

No. They are direct quotations from the source on that page. pg 308 Had they been from Hayley, I would have indicated that she said it. SusunW (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did Hayley inherit £15,000 in cash from her first husband or was that the value of his business? If it's the former, why didn't she inherit the business?

Again, I have no idea. Speculating would be original research, but since he died nearly 130 years before the Married Women's Property Act 1882, it is likely that it was her dowry. Typically she was entitled to nothing except return of her dowry and under primogeniture, his son would have inherited his father's estate. The source says he left her "an inheritance of £15,000" pg 124. His obit says he left her a life interest in 2 estates owned by his deceased first wife, his interest in the business (no stated value) and a "contingent reversion" (no idea what that means) of £5,000 should his son die. pg 555 SusunW (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"He operated at 9 Laurence Pountney Lane, London, as George Hayley, at 18 Great Ayliff Street on Goodman's Fields as Hayley and Rotch and as Hayley and Hopkins" I wasn't quite sure what that meant.

He had 3 business ventures. 2 of them at the same location. I have reworded it: He operated at 9 Laurence Pountney Lane, London, as George Hayley and at 18 Great Ayliff Street on Goodman's Fields, he operated as both Hayley and Rotch and as Hayley and Hopkins.SusunW (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and filed suit to collect from Hayley" Collect what?

Dinah's inheritance, added text.SusunW (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Carabinieri (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the file Carabinieri I cannot answer some of the things you ask. It is rare to find any documentation on a woman who wasn't part of court society in this time period. That we have materials at all is pretty amazing, even if they are sketchy and leave some fairly big gaps. From her birth to George's death, there is very little information about her first 50+ years. The American years are fairly complete, but then after her return to England, all goes dark again. Could just be that I cannot access British sources from Mexico. Let me know if you need any other info and I'll try to answer. SusunW (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Susun, thank for your reply. Don't worry about those questions. Those were just things the article left me wondering about, but if the sources don't answer them, then I guess it can't be helped. I checked some of the sources.

The Bleackley book (at least the edition on archive.org) only goes up to pg. 464, so there's no pg. 525. At least based on my search of the book, Dinah being born in 1759 isn't mentioned in the book.

Actually there is, but I don't know how to tell you to get there other than by moving the bar at the bottom of the page to that page. It is at the end of the text and before the index and is a genealogical chart. At the bottom of the slide bar it says it is page 525, but the page itself is unnumbered. Can you see it here [1]?

I suppose that page number is based on archive.org's page numbering which also a counts a lot of unnumbered pages. Based on the book's own numbering it would be between pg. 449 and pg. 450, but is itself unnumbered. I'm not quite sure how to proceed in this kind of situation. The MLA recommends citing it as between 449 and 450. Maybe we should do that?--Carabinieri (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm guessing you were able to see it? I have no problem with renumbering it as "between 449 and 450", that just seemed more confusing to me, as if you move the slide bar to 449, you don't end up on the page. Far be it from me to understand technology ;) Give me a few minutes and I'll try to do that. SusunW (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by the pages in the book and wasn't able to find it then. With your link, I was able to. I think what the bar on archive.org does is display the book's page numbers on numbered pages and display its own count on unnumbered pages.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said, it is confusing, but I think I managed to change them all to the "between 449 and 450", though that may mean no one else can ever find it. LOL SusunW (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure about using the Byrnes sources since they are self-published. How important are they?

Byrnes is what led me to the information to debunk some of the information in other sources, so I would say his information is critical. As I pointed out, while it is self-published, it cites his sourcing and through that sourcing, some of which I cannot access, he confirms that Hayley did not have anything to do with the ships, but rather the tea that was on the ships and the relationship to Hancock. He is also the source that evaluates her place in history. Were the source a fan blog, a promotional tabloid article, or non-independent, we would prohibit its use; however, it is a serious, scholarly evaluation of commerce between Britain, France and the colonies of America and Australia, of which I have not seen in any other discussion, thus an invaluable source. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to proceed here. The Byrnes source doesn't really seem to fall under any of the exceptions in WP:RSSELF and WP:GAC is fairly absolute about not accepting any source that don't meet reliability standards. Byrnes appears to cite The British Establishment, 1760-1784, pg. 709 for the claim that Hayley facilitated the shipment of tea to Boston. There's a library in my city that has that book. I'll try to make it there some time this week. Maybe we can replace the reference to Byrnes. Do you think that would be a viable solution?--Carabinieri (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri That would be very cool! (There are no public libraries here in my part of Mexico, so if I cannot find a source on-line, I have no access). In general, with women's biographies I follow WP:IAR, because they often don't fit the constraints of WP. If I can back into RS using traditional methods (no articles on her but articles which cover her in depth as a family member type thing), I do. But very often, one must try to verify information with primary sources or other sourcing that can be backed up by verifying their sources. I rarely accept any secondary source without being able to confirm most of the information in it with other sources and every source cited which I could access confirmed what Byrnes said. Had I been willing to just accept what the sourcing said, the bio would have her owning the ships involved in the tea party and marrying Jeffrey two years before she actually did. SusunW (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri I want to revisit this, because I think you may be incorrect about the Byrnes source. The guideline says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Byrnes meets that criteria IMO. Britain's Convicts to the Colonies, published by Library of Australian History (commerce between Britain and colonies)[2] His commentary is discussed here [3]. Published works on commerce between Britain and colonies [4] published by 0155-8633, [5] published in issn 0156-8698, [6] published in issn 0314-8750. Each of the publishers is an Australian historical society, i.e. maritime, social, etc. SusunW (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that has me convinced. Thanks.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know about the sentence "Though largely unknown, her story...". Clearly, a lot of aspects of her story have been told; otherwise, you wouldn't have been able to write this article.

Her story has been told in snippets of other peoples' stories. As I pointed out above, more than 50 years of her story is mostly missing, so indeed, she is largely unknown..."still-unwritten biography of Mary Wilkes/Hayley" ..."remains unknown is whether Mary Hayley invested any significant sum in either American or French whaling" ... " Mary Wilkes/Hayley and Duncan Campbell can provoke new ways of looking at the post-revolutionary era" [7]. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a problem with the statement about her being largely unknown. The reasons I'm a little uncomfortable with this sentence are that, on the one hand, it feels a little like editorializing. On the other hand, it's also a little tautological, since every story, unless it's already been told, fills a gap in the previously written history. I've deleted the sentence and moved the part about her being unknown to the previous sentence. Again feel free to revert if you disagree.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matters not to me, though I agree with the source that a full investigation of her role would lend a fuller picture of commerce in the period. SusunW (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Soon after being widowed, Storke married..." Neither of the two sources mention when they married or that it was soon after Storke's death.

We know that it was within 5 years because Dinah was born in 1759. Where in the line of the four children born to the Hayleys she falls is unknown, but considering the length of gestation, if she was the first, they would have had to marry by 1758, if Dinah was not the first, then clearly earlier, so clearly it was fairly soon after Storke's death. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Carabinieri (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri Again, thanks for your comments. Let me know if you have any more questions and I shall try my best to answer. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks to be in order to me. I'm going to pass this. Thanks for your prompt responses, Susun. I've enjoyed working on this.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri Yay! However, if you find the other source, that would still be fabulous, as it may give other information about her that at this point is unknown. Thank you so very much for the review! SusunW (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Susun. One more success.--Ipigott (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to make it to the library. But, just in case you're not aware of this, the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request also do a great job of tracking down these kinds of things.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]