Talk:William D. Gregory

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 22:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I have a source (signed German 1850s Bible). The inscription reads that it is from the ship’s library and is presented to the recipient (my ancestor) on Feb. 1853 at Capetown. “Presented by his friend Capt. Gregory of Ship Albers of Baltimore at Capetown Feb 1853” This goes against some info in the article, I believe. Originally in ship’s library “For use of passengers” from a Bible Society in 1852. Nash185389 (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• an 1856 hurricane — Do we know what hurricane? There's lots of information at 1856 Atlantic hurricane season, although it doesn't reflect a January storm. 12george1, you wrote that article; any idea?

No, I haven't been able to track anything down, sorry. All I know is that it was an extremely bad year for weather and for shipping.

• Perhaps add to the last paragraph that he made a number of voyages as mate.

No point in that, every captain works as a mate before becoming a captain.

Life and career

• William was one of seven sons from the union — Any daughters?
• Worth red linking the notable ones? Also, why were they more notable than the other two captains' careers?

They are more notable simply because they've been written about whereas the others haven't. With regard to redlinks, I generally don't redlink if I intend to author an article about the topic myself, and as I intend to write another article on at least one of his brothers, I haven't redlinked these.

• Is anything known of his career before becoming a captain? When did he become a captain?
• In 1849 he served aboard the bark Lucia Maria — As a captain?

No, as a member of the crew - probably as a mate, though we don't know that.

Tejuca (1854–1856)

• Lindsey refers to Tejuca as a bark, but all contemporaneous sources describe her as a ship (see newspaper articles below) — Better to just cite the articles than say "see them below".
• the sole illustration of the vessel—the painting by Thomas Pitman (see above)—shows her to be ship-rigged. — Cite?
• she reportedly made "one of the quickest passages on record" — Who reported it?
• returning via Bahia, Brazil, on each occasion with about 5,000 bags of coffee. — Does "on each occasion" refer to stopping in at Bahia, or to returning with 5,000 bags of coffee? I initially thought it meant both, but then read on and saw the part about carrying sugar.
• At midnight, Tejuca shipped a sea — What does it mean to "ship a sea"?
• Worth adding that the storm broke the pumps, as that helps to explain how a day went by without them fixing the ship.
• the ship settling fast — I wouldn't know what "settling" meant without looking at the source.
• "a very valuable collection of interesting and valuable articles, the accumulations of many years" — Whose words?
• What happened after the sinking of Tejuca? It sounds like Gregory ended up going to France; how did he get back?

Albers (1857–1861)

• His next port of call with Albers was Whampoa — When was this?
• "where he was violently ill" — According to?
• Here Gregory left the vessel and returned to San Francisco in another ship — Why?
• Why not include the anecdote in the first paragraph? It seems to fit directly after "where she was sold for $4,000 (equivalent to $135,644 in 2023); he nonetheless remained in command", and the line "is next port of call with Albers was Whampoa" could be the beginning of a new paragraph.

Dismissal and reinstatement, 1861

• preferred — proffered?
• "a large and enthusiastic meeting" ... "signed by nearly every legal voter in Marblehead" — According to?
• William and Samuel discovered that some political opponents in their home town of Marblehead had preferred charges of disloyalty against them — Sounds like they rubbed someone the wrong way. Any more details on what led to the acrimony?

USS Bohio (1862)

• [20][21] Neither source clarifies which Matamoras the vessel was bound for. — What are the sources doing leading off the footnote?
• "valuable cargo" — According to?
• "with bits of rope, old junk, tar and other materials" — According to?
• Simultaneously, he had the crew constantly wet the sails to increase Bohio's speed. Seeing Bohio gaining on his ship — If the ship actually could go faster, why was the ruse necessary?
• reportedly due to some ill feeling between himself and some of the other officers — Any more details?

Later life and career

• "with his brother Augustus in Catalina Island" — Whose words?
• His last voyage as a mariner was in 1866, as chief mate of the Argentinian ship Panama, bound for Buenos Aires. — What about sailing back?

Personal details

• Gregory married Deborah Anne Thayer at Marblehead on 3 September 1848. — Cite?

• Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Gregory's wife died in 1868 — How old was she?

• Added enough information above (i.e., they married when she was 18) for a reader to extrapolate. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• A single FindAGrave page is a pretty weak source to use for personal details of seven people. I would try to track down some obituaries for them—or even death certificates, since you're already using Ancestry. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• 14: This is actually on page 2, I think. Given that the edge of the paper is on the left, it has to be an even page. Looking at papers from the surrounding dates, the section "The Daily Picayune" at the top left always appeared on page 2.

Bibliography

• Coddington 2016: ISBN not hyphenated.

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• There's some inconsistency in whether state names are spelled out or not.

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Overall

• Nice article, Gatoclass. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Usernameunique. Would you mind if we put this one on hold for a while? I rather foolishly opened a bunch of GAN reviews myself in addition to the two GAN nominations of my own, all in a futile last-minute attempt to avoid elimination in the Wikicup. I also have a bunch of stuff that needs more or less immediate attention at DYK, and quite frankly, I hadn't expected the GAN process to be so rigorous, as it generally has not been in my admittedly limited experience. But I really need to get back to those GAN reviews I opened now, because it would be unfair to the nominators not to do so. Gatoclass (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, Gatoclass—there's no rush on my end, so take your time. For Wikicup purposes I would offer to hurry up my replies on Hurricane (clipper), but (as I think the present threshold is 75 points) unless you have an ace up your sleeve I don't think that would be much help. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Gatoclass, friendly reminder about this review. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass and Usernameunique: There has been no action on this for over a month, and the article now also has a maintenance tag for heavy reliance on primary sources; we're getting to a point where this really needs to be closed if there isn't going to be any further work carried out soon. Harrias ^talk 10:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, I was unexpectedly extremely busy in real life right up until the end of June. Unfortunately, a few days into July, I suffered a recurrence of a herniated disc injury to my lower back that has made it difficult to sit and therefore use the computer. Regardless, I've been able to push forward on the three remaining open GAN reviews I've been doing, and when I get one or two of those out of the way I'll be ready to return to this nomination - shouldn't be long now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Gatoclass No worries, take care of yourself. Harrias ^talk 11:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Closing comment

• As mentioned in a parallel review, it's time to conclude this review. It has been open plenty long enough, and there is little question that the article is not in GA shape. Among other things, the article has received a hatnote and various tags related to sourcing and disambiguation since the review began, and the nominator has made few if any efforts to resolve the identified issues. That alone likely disqualifies the article under the third immediate-failure criterion. And then there's the fact that few of the comments above have been responded to. I don't doubt that this article could become a good article in the future. It would take resolving the issues identified above and in this paragraph; more importantly, it would take an involved nominator. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Primary sourcing

@Gatoclass: I wonder based on this edit summary whether there is some confusion about the concern here. The issue is not doubt as to whether Gregory described the event as such, but rather that his eyewitness account of the event is indisputably a primary source. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, you may be correct to describe it as a "primary source", according to Wikipedia's ever-shifting current interpretation of the term. My objection is to the tag. Tags of this kind exist to alert the reader to text that may be unreliable. There is zero value in causing the reader to doubt that Gregory said this; he unquestionably said it, there are stacks of contemporaneous newspaper reports on the sinking of this vessel that confirm it. Your other two tags I have accepted as reasonable because there must be a degree of doubt about the first (though not much IMO) while the second could admittedly be better sourced (I may have some additional sources to add there at some point). BTW, I may not be able to follow up on this discussion immediately as I am about to log off for the day. Gatoclass (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This tag exists to alert the reader that the text relies heavily on primary sources, which it does. To my knowledge even outside of Wikipedia things like genealogical records and eyewitness accounts are considered to be primary sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I agree that certain geneological records, and eyewitness accounts, are primary sources. However, the question is in what circumstances one should apply primary source tags. One can of course take the maximalist view and tag everything that fits the definition of "primary source". But let's look at what our guidelines have to say on the topic:

"Primary" does not mean "bad"

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.

If primary sources are permissible, even the best sources to use in some circumstances, then what is the point of tagging such material with a template that expands to non-primary source needed? Apart from defacing the article, all it can achieve is to cast doubt on the article text in the reader's mind and make him think the article is unreliable when it isn't. That doesn't help anybody. Gatoclass (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Because in this particular case much of the article is based on primary sources, whereas as an encyclopedia Wikipedia should be based largely on secondary sources. I've got no problem with you sourcing some direct quotes from the subject to a primary source; my concern here is the extent. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What sources are you referring to exactly? Gatoclass (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking which sources are primary? All the Ancestry.com stuff, several of the contemporary newspaper records, the marine register, parts of the Naval Chronology. Possibly Lindsey - you seem to be referencing two different versions of it in the citations vs bibliography? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Which of the contemporary newspaper sources do you consider to be primary? I just want to be sure we are on the same page here. Gatoclass (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Roads is not, not sure about footnote 14, others are primary. That doesn't mean that all of those are problematic - for example FN11 is used only for a short direct quote. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back to this sooner. My first comment is that I am quite frankly astonished that you would consider the Naval Chronology as a primary source. It was published in 1965 - 100 years after the events in question - and is an official chronology of the US Navy history department. How on earth can that be described as a primary source? With regard to Lindsey, he was writing 50 years after the events in question, and again, can therefore hardly be described as a primary source. BTW, I did not link to two different editions of Lindsey, they are scans of the same edition, but one includes an addendum that I thought would be useful to include while the other is a better reproduction.

Now, with regard to the rest, I think I can agree that most of the contemporaneous newspaper sources, and the marine register, fit the definition of primary sources per the guideline. However, as the guideline states, primary sources are not necessarily "bad", indeed sometimes they are the best sources to use, so whether or not to use tags hinges on whether or not their use is appropriate. Marine registers, for example, are considered pretty much the definitive source for basic ship details like tonnages etc., so they are the best sources to use for this kind of information. Newspaper sources are likewise the best sources for contemporaneous opinions and so on.

Other than that, I did meticulous research for this article, as I usually do for my articles, and I just don't believe there are any more secondary sources out there about Gregory - certainly, I've included virtually everything I found. This means that there is no choice but to rely on primary sources for the rest - and again, this is not a case of misuse of primary sources in inappropriate ways, but just for plain facts as reported in reputable journals of the day. Adding tags which state that the article "relies too much on secondary sources" can therefore only leave readers with the impression that the article is unreliably sourced, when it is not. Gatoclass (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

True, unfortunately sometimes reliable secondary sources don't exist - however that does not leave you with "no choice", because we always have the option to leave out details that can't be supported. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but it isn't actually necessary to have everything supported by secondary sources. If that wasn't the case, the use of primary sources on Wikipedia would simply be prohibited. Secondary sources are generally necessary to establish notability, and to interpret primary source material, but that doesn't mean you can't use primary sources to establish basic facts.

And certainly, where there are no secondary sources, primary sources are clearly better than nothing, providing they are reliable and used in an appropriate manner, ie, for factual statements or for contemporaneous opinions, for example. Where one has to be careful with primary sources, as I said, is in trying to use them to reach interpretative conclusions; for interpretation, one needs secondary sources. A classic example which comes to mind are the people who claim that Nazism was a form of socialism because the Nazi platform states as much. Yes, you can find plenty of primary documents in Nazi archives which identify the party as socialist, but one needs a secondary source, ie an historian, to interpret such documents, because what a political party claims to be and what it actually is can be very different things. But where there is no interpretation involved, where a primary source is just being used to establish basic facts, it's fine to use them, and they are used in this way on Wikipedia all the time. Gatoclass (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say it was necessary to have everything supported by secondary sources; for example as you mention above tonnage can be sourced to a marine register. But what's happening here goes well beyond that. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)