Talk:Edith Hern Fossett/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SusunW (talk · contribs) 22:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC) As promised, I'll try to review this one. As I have only ever done 1 review before, it may take me several days and I may need to seek guidance. SusunW (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. There is no rush at all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lede and miscellaneous

Photographs: All save the image of Peter Fossett seem fine. While Fossett died in 1901, a search of newspapers.com and archives.org does not return any published images in that year, so it is safe to say the images was made prior to death, but not when it was published. The source of the image, per both Monticello.org and Smithsonian.org was Wendell P. Dabney, Cincinnati's Colored Citizens (Cincinnati, 1926), thus it does not appear to be out of copyright. Do you have evidence of an earlier publication date?

I am finding the same thing. Since he was well known in Cincinnati before his death, I am surprised that we cannot find a newspaper article with him, but there are only so many papers that are digitized. I will remove it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede: should be expanded to at least two or three paragraphs to give a complete summary of the information in the article. I think the lede sentence is a bit confusing, as though she spent most of her life as a slave, she was ultimately manumitted. The lede should cover her training, when it happened, when she worked in the White House, when she married, when she became chief chef at Monticello, when her ownership changed and why, when and how she was manumitted, when she moved to Ohio, and when she died.

Really great points! I think it is much better now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, I don't know when Joseph and Edith were married. It's really foggy because Jefferson didn't act as if he knew Edith and Joseph was married... and I don't see anything that says when their relationship began. The only thing I know is when the first baby was born, which is assumed to be Fossetts (either as a birth father or by assuming them as his children).–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. Thank you. In the 2nd sentence of the lede, either paraphrase the quote, or add a citation. (My preference is paraphrasing as I find citations in the summary odd, but that is probably just me.) I would suggest that with each new paragraph in the topic line you identify Fossett by name before resorting to "she".

Both the paraphrasing of the sentence and the change to the first sentence of each paragraph are

Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing appears to be reliable. No blogs or apparent uncurated sources. Still pending spot check and copyvio review.

I tried to head this off at the past by looking at the copyvio report. I made a few changes where I had paraphrased content from one source, but it became a copyvio issue with another. Anyway, I did the best that I can.

What I am finding now are that the hits are due to: quotes, book titles, and names of people and I think that Edith's name should be first when talking about Edith and Fanny. And, information in citations. Anyway, I hope that helps. If you think it is necessary, I can paraphrase the big block quote about emancipation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson this is a very brief start. I've read through it a couple of times and have questions, but those will have to wait until tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added comments above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

"had taken care of" possibly "tended to" is more concise?
MOS allows both list and prose, but seems to me that within a biographical section prose flows better than a list. I would convert the children of David and Isabel to a prose paragraph beginning with Hern's siblings included ...
"which included Isabel and Davy's grandchildren" is confusing. Who are we referring to? Davy was married to Fanny Gillette. David was married to Isabel.

Done. I changed the start of the last sentence to: "Three generations of Hern family, which included Isabel and David's grandchildren". Good catch.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French chef

I am confused by the statement "employing a French chef was financially out of reach". He apparently did employ several, including Honoré Julien. Source states "Jefferson employed French chefs to train several enslaved members of the Monticello community". Perhaps inserting "employing a French chef for all of his dining and entertaining needs was financially out of reach" or something similar?

Done I think your suggestion is good. I couldn't figure out a better way to word it. It was because as time went on there wasn't enough revenue coming in from the sale of tobacco and his had assumed debts as the result of his father-in-law's estate. So, while he had a lot of money at one time, that decreased over time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The background section ends in 1796 with James Heming training Peter. Appears that Jefferson was without a French chef until Edith and Fanny began their training in 1802? Perhaps you should add a statement, i.e. "train his brother Peter to cook," who then became the head cook until he took over the brewery in 1809, before the citation.

I changed the note "Peter Hemings, who had been the head cook, was transferred to brewing beer when Edith returned to Monticello" and add a tag for the note with that sentence. Does that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monticello

"Fossett returned to Monticello in 1809" is an abrupt change, as previously she has been called Hern or Edith. While you did state that she had given birth to three children, their surnames are not mentioned, nor is their father. Perhaps you want to introduce her husband in the previous section? I would recommend moving the statement "Edith, also called "Edy", married Joseph Fossett (1780 – September 19, 1858),[10] the enslaved son of Mary Hemings. He was a Monticello blacksmith.[11]" from Marriage and children here.

Done here. I reworded the "married" part a bit to "was married to", because it was likely a common law marriage.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"hot chocolate made", was made

Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage and children

I would start the discussion in this section with who Joseph was. He came before the children or the midwife and as noted above, our introduction to him should be moved to the section "Monticello" and then this section should start with him. I do not think that I would offset his name with a heading, but I'll leave that up to you.
"disturbing news", possibly involving his wife seems needed, as why else would he go?
Delete 1806 as it is redundant after July 29

Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Family separation and reunification

I would flip the location of this section and the children section, as the children had to be born before the family was separated.

Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've established that different buyers bought the family, but it may be unclear to readers as to why, when they were purchased by family members it was still necessary for Joseph and Mary Hemings Bell to free them. A brief discussion of the legal process of manumitting slaves would be helpful. this or this provide information on the various laws of Virginia.

I am not sure exactly what you were looking for, but I gave it a shot here. Is this the kind of thing you were thinking of?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Children

Again I would swap the section order with the previous section
Citation to Schwartz(22) should include page #381
For Maria, flip citations so that 22 comes before 27
"Ann-Elizabeth or Elizabeth-Ann or Betsy" perhaps reads easier as Ann-Elizabeth (also known as Elizabeth-Ann or Betsy).

Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Citation check and copyvio check to follow. SusunW (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! You have provided great, thoughtful input that is making the article better. Thanks for that, I know it's hard work!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for trusting me to work on the article CarleHenson. I get that I am slow, and some of these are pretty nitpicky, but we're in the home stretch. Changes look good. I'll try to wrap it up today or tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. SusunW (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a really good job... and it wasn't slow at all. I appreciate how thorough you were. I know it takes a long time to verify everything. And, I appreciate your thoughtfulness for the reader!

I read the lede another time (I was super foggy yesterday) - and made these few changes just now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

A check of Earwig and comparison of links to material show no obvious copyvios nor any material that has not been directly quoted without credit.

Spot check of sources:

1 son of David and Isabel is given as Thruston (not Thurston). Google search confirms all references to Jefferson's slave (at least from my location) spell it RU not ur.
3 I do not see "elegant desserts" in either 1 or 3, if this is not a quote, please remove marks.
4 I do not see the name Ivy in the source, but there is a daughter Lily listed.
13 page number should be 189
21 Maria was at Tufton, and the source confirms this, but the reader is left asking what is Tufton? This, confirms it was one of Jefferson's other farms.
23 either change the link to all, or you need to list separate page numbers for the citation. As it currently exists in the article, the citation only covers information on page 1.
41 says Pauline Powell Burns was a descendant but doesn't give the kinship relationship. This does.
8, Sentence after Burns is vague, and appears to indicate "her" refers to Burns. Whereas the source confirms it is Fossett.

Comment: No disrepancies found with #30 or #36

All are

Done. For the last item [8]. I changed it from "Her" to "Their". Does that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Link emancipated at its first occurrence in the article.
Link manumitted at its first occurrence in the article.
Link Interracial marriage to mixed races marrying.
Remove all but the first occurrence link to Underground Railroad in the article.

I am confused. Emancipated and manumitted were linked at the first occurence -- up in the lede. Do you mean link at the first occurence in the body of the article?

Yes, first occurrence in the body. Sorry I wasn't clear. SusunW (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third and fourth items are done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

CaroleHenson Very nice job and thank you so much for your patience with me. I think you have addressed all of my major concerns and the article definitely passes the criteria. I love learning things and totally enjoyed learning about Fossett. Thank you for your work on her. (Now we'll see if I can do the technical parts of approving the article ) If you are of a mind, you might enter her as a recent article for Women in Green's 2020 targets. SusunW (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Not necessary for the article to meet the criteria, but as an aside because the manual of style says we should confirm primary data when possible: We have sources 15, 17, 22, 27, 34, 36 which tie to the Monticello database, which does not seems to be a significant portion of primary sources when there are over 40 citations in the article. 15 could be confirmed by [1], 17 is already backed up by 18, 22 appears to not have a secondary source to confirm it, 27 is confirmed by [2] and 34 & 36 are confirmed by the amount and names)

Thank you so much! The article has been nicely polished with your input! I really appreciate it. I don't quite understand what I would do by nominating the article for Women in Green. It seems like there needs to be goals, and unless I am wrong it seems to be about moving a to GA nomination or GA pass. I may need to read the pages again to understand it better.

I didn't think of the Monticello website as a primary source for Edith, in the way I would have for Thomas Jefferson or Martha Jefferson Randolph, so I am glad you brought that up. I could go through the article and cut down the number of citations if you think that would be a good idea. A lot of the material there was in other sources, as you've mentioned.

In any event, I really appreciate your thoughtfulness during the review!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson for Women in Green the criteria is simple: Is the article about a woman or something related to women? Was it nominated for GA? Obviously, she meets both, but it's your call if you want to participate in the initiative. I don't think you need to remove any of the citations. The database is reliable. Totally your call if you want to add any of the other citations. I simply noted it in case anyone questions the primary nature of the source and to give you the option of adding secondary sources if you want. It was a pleasure to work with you on the article. SusunW (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, SusunW. Ipigott added the article about Edith to Women in Green.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]