Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Jane Richardson Jones/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 April 2022 [1].

Mary Jane Richardson Jones

edit
Nominator(s): Ganesha811 (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 19th-century American abolitionist and activist. I have been working on this article since last January (2021). In May 2021, it was reviewed for GA by Edwininlondon, and passed. I believe it meets the FA criteria and look forward to your comments. This is only my second FAC, after Mary van Kleeck, so I am still fairly new to the process. Thanks for taking the time to review it! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak
  • Add {{circa}} to infobox image caption per image source
    • Done.
  • Suggest linking Illinois in the infobox and splitting birthplace into separate city and state links
  • South Carolina is linked in the body, but Tennessee and Illinois are not. Could be MOS:OL, not sure if there is a precedent specifically for US states though.
    • Response: I am not sure either, but for now I have linked each state the first time it appears in either lead or body. I'll look and see if I can find a guideline.
      • Fixed - on reflection, I think it is probably overlinking, so I've removed the links to US states.
  • her father's house - Was this the family's group house, or were the parents separated at that point?
    • Response: - I do not know. I've never seen any reference suggesting her parents separated, but the source (p. 342) says her father's house in particular, so that's what I wrote.
      • Yeah, it looks like the author in this case just called it was "his estate" and referred to it as such despite living there with his wife. Given that this is what the source says, I'm fine with it.
  • North Carolina and Chicago are also linked. Suggest looking through article for linking of geographic names and applying MOS:OL where applicable.
    • Response: - as mentioned above, am happy to remove links if they're not needed.
  • freedman's papers or "freedmen's papers"? Everything I see on Google uses an e.
    • Fixed, good catch.
  • Jones moved with him - They would have both been "Jones" at this point, and I reckon it would make more sense to just say "the couple moved" unless she specifically followed him after he decided to move.
    • Fixed.
  • Suggest linking/piping Fugitive slaves in the United States from "runaway slaves"
    • Done.
  • Suggest adding {{Inflation}} to the $3.50 statement
    • Not done - couldn't get it to work right (it just showed '95') so will try again.
      • Done - I believe I've now understood how it's supposed to be used and added it accordingly.
        • Just about - The template uses an index year that doesn't necessarily line up with the current year, so I've made that change here.
          • Fixed. - should be all set now, thanks for the help with this!
  • Shorten John Jones' tailoring business to "John's tailoring business". Suggest using "John" instead of "John Jones" at future points in the article.
    • Done.
  • I assume Lavinia was also a Jones - If this is the case, maybe say "The Joneses, including their daughter Lavinia" or something similar. Perhaps include birthdate/year or add a sentence about her if we know anything more about her.
    • Response: Her birth name was Lavinia Jones, and she later became Lavinia Jones Lee, presumably through marriage. You can find her on unreliable sources like FindAGrave and Ancestry.com, but there's almost nothing about her in reliable sources I could add. Adjusted the sentence per your recommendation though.
      • That works
  • Decapitalize "Church" in "African Methodist Episcopal Church"
    • Done.
  • Remove address of tailoring business unless it's particularly significant.
    • Removed. It was included basically only because I was curious and tracked it down, but I agree it's not actually significant.
  • What kind of political success did he achieve?
    • Response: - he was elected to the Cook County Commission, the first black man to be so. One of my to-do-list items is improving his page, which is fairly sparse at the moment.
      • Suggest including this info in the article
        • Included.
  • Suggest piping "was hanged in" to Virginia v. John Brown#Execution
    • Done.
  • Racial integration and/or Civil rights movement (1865–1896) could be linked
    • Done: added the latter.
  • The single-sentence paragraph at the beginning of "Later life" should be merged or expanded. Also is a run-on to my reading.
    • Partially done - split the sentence and will expand.
      • Expanded somewhat from Junger source.
        • Looks significantly better - Recommend using the "r=" parameter to round off the lower 3-5 digits in the Inflation template, and the year needs to be fixed as above.
  • The article for Phillis Wheatley Club lists the spellings "Phillis" and "Phyllis", but not "Phylis".
    • Fixed adjusted to the Wiki article title.
  • before the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 - The fire was introduced earlier in the article, so this could perhaps be shortened to "before the 1871 fire" or "before the Great Fire of 1871".
    • Fixed.
  • Oxford comma usage is inconsistent (Hull House, the Phylis Wheatley Club in Chicago, and Provident Hospital uses it, while Susan B. Anthony, Carrie Chapman Catt and others does not)
    • Fixed, added comma.
  • in the latter case, providing him lodgings at her home and funding his medical education. - Suggest changing to "in the latter case, she provided him with lodgings at her home and funded his medical education" to match tense with the first part of the sentence.
    • Done.
  • Pluralization of nouns ending in "s" is inconsistent - Jones' is used in some places, but Ida B. Wells's is later used. This is a fairly rule-laden area and may warrant a closer look.
    • Response - my Achilles heel of grammar. I can never remember what's right! I'll go through and fix it.
      • Fixed I think the article is now in accordance with MOS:PLURALNOUN.
        • Looks good, I missed that guideline
  • Suggest She died on... -> "Jones died on..."
    • Done.
  • the Chicago Defender should be "The Chicago Defender"
    • Done.
  • FN3, which has a lot of references, is 503 unavailable for me. Could just be my end though.
    • Question: is that the Junger source? If so, I can access it so might just be you. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that was Junger. Tried again and it worked just fine so perhaps I was just trying at a bad time.

This is all I have for now. Looks like it relies heavily on some references and there are relatively few footnotes for a FAC, but if the sources are reliable and the article is comprehensive that shouldn't be a problem. AviationFreak💬 17:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I've made a couple of minor copyedits; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

The only thing there is that because both Fannie and Daniel shared the last name Williams (though they were not related or married), the reader may be confused whose medical education she funded. Tweaked to avoid this. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, should have seen that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know if Tilton was successful in his plea to the Crosby Opera House to integrate its seating, either for his performance or generally?
    • At least for that lecture, the source makes clear he was successful. Since I obviously didn't make that clear in the article, edited to fix this.
  • "John's tailoring business was also reconstructed at a new location". If you mean a new building was constructed I wouldn't use the word "business"; if you mean he rebuilt his business I wouldn't say "reconstructed"; rebuilt or restarted might work.
    • Fixed - went with restarted.
  • Can we say why she was hesitant to support women's suffrage? You mention Lewis, but that doesn't help the reader understand her hesitation. I tried clicking through to the article on Lewis but searches for "suffrage" and "vote" turned up nothing.
    • The source is also a little vague. Junger writes

      "Jones came to the issue of women's suffrage more slowly, as did many other women of her generation. For instance, she gave a presentation on Mary Edmonia Lewis, the daughter of a freed black man and Native American woman who became a well-known late nineteenth-century sculptress, to a women's suffrage group in 1873... [a reporter wrote that] 'Mrs. Jones did not believe that Lewis ever got to that point where she cared to vote.' With time Jones modified her position, however..."

    • I wasn't able to find a lot in other sources on Jones' view of suffrage. If you have a better suggested wording, I'm very open to it, because I agree the article as written isn't very specific. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think I understand what the source is trying to say. The source doesn't quote its primary sources, does it? I would almost suggest cutting the mention of Lewis if we can't explain what she's saying -- the point that she resisted and then changed her mind can be made without that. Take a look at this; it's not usable as a source for us, but it explains why black women sometimes lacked enthusiasm for the women's suffrage movements. It would be good to find something like that that mentions Lewis; we might be able to connect that to Jones' opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't see a clear chain back to primary sources for those facts from the Junger source, no. I can't access the Chicago Tribune archives, though. For now, I've cut the mention of Lewis, though as you say, if we can find a way to include the connection with a little more detail, it would be a definite plus! I'll do some digging. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Take a look at this; someone clipped it last year! That should do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Good to see! I've restored the clause with slightly different wording - let me know what you think! Hopefully fixed. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Can we do a little more? We have her (indirectly reported) words; it would be nice to use them. Perhaps 'Jones was not quick to become a suffragist, arguing that prominent African-American women such as Edmonia Lewis had not pushed for suffrage, and saying that "her idea of woman suffrage" was that "a woman should do all she could do".' Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Adjusted to your wording and added the citation. I think it looks pretty good now. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see to comment on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good; a well-written and concise article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating my support after the minor expansion of the article today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and improvements! Ganesha811 (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/pass

edit

Spot checks not done, as they say. SN54129 13:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Journal of Illinois History: OCLC?
    • Added.
  • Schultz et al. 2001: needs publisher.
    • Added.
  • Lusk 1897: needs an identity number, e.g. OCLC.
    • Added ISBN - could not find an OCLC # available.
  • Kaba * McDowell, 2017: Ditto, ISBN (and presumably OCLC, since you use both).
    • So this one is complicated. The physical book has no ISBN or other identifier, only a publisher. The publisher, Haymarket Books, may simply be a name chosen for self-publication. The book is not in wide circulation and was produced locally in Chicago. I don't have any reason to believe the book is unreliable, but given this, I've removed most of the citations to this book in the article. The facts included were all supported by other sources in any case - the Kaba/McDowell book just happens to be how I heard about Richardson Jones in the first place, so it has stayed on as a "legacy" source since the beginning. The only fact that Kaba-McDowell contains that other sources do not is her place of burial and that her tombstone reads "Grandma Jonesie." I'm reluctant to let this one go, as I think it finishes the article very nicely. The grave is also visible on FindAGrave, though I understand that's not generally considered a reliable source. Given the uncontroversial nature of the information, do you think it's acceptable to use the Kaba-McDowell source for this sentence only? Ganesha811 (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tricky indeed! As far as Haymarket books goes, they're small and radical, but they're not self-publishers: see [2]; they've published Noam Chomsky, for example. The odd thing is that on Worldcat, HB isn't mentioned, and the publisher's given as Chicago Black Women Tour, which does sound rather an SPS. Having said all that, now you've removed them as references, I don't see any problem with using it to support a statement of knowable fact. Perhaps ask the good folk at the Chicagoan Wikiproject if someone can grab a photo? SN54129 14:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Good idea - I've asked there, but it could be a while before anyone gets around to it! Chicago Black Women Tour is also listed in the book - they're the organization which "sponsored" the work, I guess? It's a little unclear, but Mariame Kaba is a well-known activist in Chicago; I don't know anything about Essence McDowell. As you say, it's a verifiable, uncontroversial fact, and in fact by common-sense standards it is already verified, given the picture on find-a-grave. If I'm reading your comment right, then, you're ok with the final sentence as it currently stands and is sourced? Ganesha811 (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your ISBNs should be consistently formatted.
    • Done - all ISBNs are hyphenated 13-character ISBNs where possible.
      • I should've been clearer; I meant, as well, that they should all be laid out the same way. E.g. 978-A-BBB-CCCCC-D. I've done that myself, considering I should've been clearer originally. SN54129 18:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing that! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are a mix of peer-reviewed journals, University and other reputable presses, and contemporaneous newspapers of record. WWTO and the NPS are absolutely fine for the weight they bear.
  • Nice article! Cheers, SN54129 13:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129:, thank you for your comments and improvements! They are appreciated. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the recent minor expansion of the article (Thanks MC!) I confirm that I'm monitoring the sources as they're added and so far it's sound. But a gentle reminder that, while it's important that (per WP:FA?#1B) the article be comprehensive (i.e, "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"), this is counterbalanced by #4, "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style". IOW, not everything you find needs to be included; both WP:DUE, FRINGE and NOTINDISCRIMINATE also apply at FAC, as they do any article. Cheers, SN54129 17:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely, and that's something I've been trying to watch out for. Is there any detail/bit in particular that I should take a second look at? Ganesha811 (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not at all, just a general observation in response to "so that the article has as much information as is available". Carry on  :) SN54129 17:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

edit

Non-expert prose review (although I have written some an FA bio on a person in this time period, they were Canadian and don't seem to have much crossover). Due to how short this article is, I did a search for additional sources on WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, and some other databases I have access. Why were the following sources not used in the article?

  • "Mary Jane Richardson Jones" in Notable Black American Women, found on Gale (through WP:LIBRARY)
  • Bontemps, Arna, and Jack Conroy. They Seek a City. Garden City. N.Y.: Doubleday, 1945. (cited by the above) [3]
  • Mary Ellen Snodgrass, The Underground Railroad: An Encyclopedia of People, Places, and Operations, [4]

Please ping upon reply. Z1720 (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: pinging as requested. Good questions regarding sources! The Notable Black Women source is great, and I see that it does contain some details not found in the article already. As to why it wasn't included before, it's simply that I didn't find it! I did find They Seek A City, which dedicates a chapter to the Joneses - Chapter IV, "John Brown's Friend." However, it is really only about John Jones, and Mary Jones gets pretty much just two mentions. Both of them are quoted in Notable Black Women, actually - that she was a "fair octoroon whose queenly beauty became a legend in later years" and that she had "queenly grace and hauteur." Other than that, there's nothing that could be added to this article. I also don't see anything about Mary in the Snodgrass source that isn't already in the article. I am tempted to go through and add some of the details from Notable Black Women to the article, but I know expansion during an FAC is sometimes frowned upon - what do you think? Ganesha811 (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be worth adding the new material; if it's substantial you might courtesy ping the other reviewers to see if they want to review, but if it's just a couple of sentences I don't think that's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with all of that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ping me again when you have finished incorporating Notable Black Women into the article. Since this is such a short article, I also encourage you to search the databases you have access to (especially WP:LIBRARY) so that the article has as much information as is available. I also encourage you to look at the references of the sources that were already used, as that lead to additional information. I will also do another source search and post here if I find anything new. Z1720 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did another search for sources online and could not find other ones. I trust that you have also looked for sources and added everything that could give additional information in the article.
  • "only eight years after the city's incorporation." only is not necessary in this sentence and can be removed.
  • Removed.
  • " However, John Jones's tailoring business succeeded" I don't think however is necessary here, as this is not opposed to the last sentence. I think it should be removed.
  • Removed.
  • "key to earning respect." Earning the respect of who?
  • Rephrased and added a little more context from the source.
  • " One scholar, Junger, has written that" Since Junger was introduced in the previous section, "One scholar" is not necessary here and can be deleted.
  • Removed.
  • "Jones died on December 26, 1909." Any information of how she died, or illness leading up to her death?
  • Not that I know of. If I could get my hands on the Defender article, it might say, but I haven't been able to. It's just quoted in Junger. I did search the Chicago Tribune for an obituary/mention around that time, but wasn't able to find one. I should also note that there are contradictory death dates given for Jones - Junger and at least one other give December 26th, 1909, but Notable Black Women gives January 2nd, 1910. I'm inclined to believe the earlier date and guess she was probably buried on the January date, since it would be odd to report on someone's death when they hadn't died yet. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns have been addressed, and I cannot find additional sources to be evaluated for the article. If other sources are discovered, I hope their inclusion will be considered. Z1720 (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and improvements! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon

edit

Glad to see this here. I did the GAN review. Very little left for me to comment:

  • inconsistent date format: infobox has December 26th but lead has December 26, and same at the end of the article. And there is " 2 January, 1910."
  • Fixed. - article now consistently uses Month #.
  • family, she and her family --> not great to have family twice so close
  • Adjusted to avoid repetition.
  • I would link Tennessee and Illinois in the lead
  • Linked.

That's it. I Support on prose. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:John_and_Mary_Jones_in_the_1840s.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Mary_Jane_Richardson_Jones_and_granddaughter.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know for sure, in either case. Obviously, both were taken during her lifetime. The Chicago History Museum states, for the similar portrait of her by Baldwin & Drake (which I assume was taken at the same time as the one with her granddaughter), that there is no known copyright. I got the photos from Bruce Purnell, who is a descendant of the Joneses, but I believe all of the images except that of the gravestones are in the public domain. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of the images of the Joneses held by the Chicago History Museum and others seem to come from the Franklyn Atkinson Henderson collection. Henderson died in 1962 and his nieces donated the collection in the early '90s. That link states: "Many of the photographs in his collection were exhibited at the 1940 American Negro Exposition, held in Chicago. A larger group of the photographs was exhibited in 1943 at the South Side Community Art Center; that exhibit received a major feature article in the Chicago Herald American newspaper." I can't say whether these photos of the Joneses were among them for sure, of course. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Under US law public display of a work does not constitute publication. What's the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Or are these unpublished? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unless the Chicago Historical Society, Chicago Public Library or someone else unknown is selling prints, they are probably unpublished under that definition, yes. I can trace the infobox portrait back to a donation by their granddaughter to the Chicago Historical Society. She wrote a letter saying that it was one of a pair that hung in their home (his portrait is on his page). The 1840s portrait I cannot find in the collections of any archive, though it is online elsewhere as early as 2008, and it may have first entered circulation via Bruce Purnell, i.e. came down through the family. The Baldwin & Drake photographs, as mentioned, appear to have come through the Franklyn Atkinson Henderson collection - how he got his hands on them I do not know but it seems plausible they were never published. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looking at the Hirtle chart for unpublished images, the 1865 portrait and the 1840s photo should both be fine, as they were certainly created before 1902. Aaron Darling, the portrait painter, was active from 1845-1874 per the Smithsonian, so it stretches credibility that he could have died after 1952. As for the Baldwin & Drake photographs, I'm 99% sure they were taken before 1902 - not only does it match the information we have and her and her grandaughter's subjective age, their studio is listed in the 1892 Chicago Business directory but not the 1900 edition, suggesting they went out of business before that date. I have not found any evidence of them being extant after 1902. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Yes, I will apply the appropriate tags now! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tags are switched! Thanks for the help. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria any other image comments? Ganesha811 (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you for your help and improvements! Ganesha811 (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

edit

Interesting article, just few nitpicks:

  • "she and her family moved to Illinois when she was a teenager" — how about "during her teenage"?
  • Done.
  • "in the antebellum era" — might be better to add some context about what 'antebellum era' is (at-least in the lead). I would have not known it without clicking the link.
  • Done, switched text but kept link.
  • "After her husband's 1879 death" — Shouldn't it be "After her husband's death in 1879"? Writing "1879 death" implies that her husband died many times, and we are concerned about the 1879 one, which is practically not possible!
  • Done!
  • "as well as becoming a suffragist" — is 'as well as' necessary? How about "and became a suffragist"?
  • Done.
  • "The historian Wanda A. Hendricks" — I know this is acceptable in English English, but I am not sure whether American English has the definite article with job titles.
  • Not changed - this was done to avoid false title, which was mentioned by Gog as an issue in my first FAC for Mary van Kleeck.
  • Isn't Wanda A. Hendricks notable enough for a red-link?
  • Done.
  • Infobox: "(age 89-90)" — shouldn't it be an en-dash in place of hyphen?
  • Done.
  • She has been described as "abolitionist, philanthropist, and suffragist" in the lead, but occupation in the infobox is Activist. Why?
  • Comment: simply because activist seems to cover all of these activities in the context of her life, while the more specific words are not really "occupations" but more akin to roles or beliefs.
  • "originally from South Carolina" — we don't mention where her father was from, and is this important to mention?
  • Removed: I suppose it's included just because it's known, but it's not actually relevant, so removed.
  • "In the 1830s, she moved with her family", "In 1841, she married", "She also mentored", etc. — At the beginning of every new paragraph, you'll need to replace the pronouns like 'her', 'she', etc. with her last name.
  • Done.
  • "she experienced the riots" — 'witnessed'?
  • Done.
  • "the riots surrounding the murder of the anti-slavery newspaperman" — awkward repetition; suggesting to rephrase if you can think of something better.
  • Rephrased.
  • "which Richardson "vividly"" — could use she instead of her surname.
  • Done.
  • "taking his name" — last name/surname?
  • Done. Went with surname.
  • "a free black man originally" — 'man' seems redundant.
  • Not done. I think it would be considered rude to refer to him as "a free black", similar to saying "a homeless" rather than "a homeless person" or "someone experiencing homelessness."
  • "on March 11, 1845" — Just "March 1845" would work and save a comma, I think.
  • Done.
  • "large anti-slavery" — 'huge'?
  • Not done. I think that goes slightly beyond the source and the change in adjective doesn't add much.
  • "O.G. Hanson" — You sure that there is no space between 'O.' and 'G.'?
  • Done: added space, since it appears that way in They Seek A City
  • "The Joneses became members of a small community of African-Americans in Chicago, comprising only 140 people" — Do we have to specify 'small'? The number itself conveys that. And if we do, then 'only' is redundant.
  • Done. Removed 'only.
  • "African Methodist Episcopal church" — our article capitalizes 'C'. Moreover, later in the article, we have "Olivet Baptist Church" with Capital 'C'
  • Comment: This had been capitalized, but was removed per a comment from AviationFreak above - I have no strong preference, as long as we can come to consensus.
  • "the Liberty party" — 'p' should be capital
  • Done.
  • "and other restrictive laws like the Fugitive Slave Act" — Which Fugitive Slave Act? 1793? presumably 1850.
  • Comment: presumably the second, but the sources don't specify and the wikilinked article covers both, so I think it works.
  • "to their raid at Harpers Ferry" — 'to their raid on Harpers Ferry'
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • "Jones wrote to him to warn him" — awkward repetition; suggesting to rephrase
  • Rephrased.
  • "personally presented" — just 'presented' would suffice, I think.
  • Done.
  • "to his audience" — 'to the audience'?
  • Done.
  • Expanded to full name.
  • There seems to be nothing from "Supporting younger activists" section in the lead
  • Added a sentence to the lead.
  • "However, once she decided to" — 'However' can be removed.
  • Done.
  • "In exchange, Hale Williams looked after her horse and buggy." — Why is mentioning this important?
  • Comment: I think it's an interesting detail that gives insight into how her support was given to a younger generation.
  • Modified and shortened as part of tweaks to paragraph.
  • "as an "interracial institution"" — Where does that quote comes from?
  • Comment: from Smith-Phelps, Notable Black Women, which is Ref#2.
  • Paraphrased as part of tweaks to paragraph.
  • Fixed.
  • "Note" section should really be "Notes"
  • Fixed.
  • "www.nps.gov" is redundant, I think, when "U.S. National Park Service" is already mentioned.
  • Removed.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, thanks for resolving the issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your many comments and improvements! Ganesha811 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Alanscottwalker

edit
  • Nice work. I put a question about the "octoroon" assertion on the talk page. Perhaps we can discuss it there or here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • May as well discuss here - it's an interesting question. I've never heard of "octoroon" being used figuratively; as far as I'm aware, it was a specific term that sometimes had legal implications as well as being in common parlance. However, I can't pin down her ancestry specifically. Given that it's generally a reliable source, I don't think there's any reason to believe they would call her an octoroon if she wasn't, to the best of their knowledge, 1/8 black. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the United States, these terms were often used loosely to refer to gradations of complexion, without regard to ancestry (and in the U.S. unlike other places in the Americas they were not generally of legal use) [5] So, it's not a matter of reliability, it's a matter of how those authors were using it (if they wanted to really talk about her parents and ancestors they would have likely identified them, instead of talking about her looks). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that the passage was intended to focus on her appearance, but given their lack of focus on her at all in the chapter (she's barely mentioned throughout) I don't think we can take absence of evidence as evidence. The article phrases it as follows: "In the 1945 book They Seek A City, Arna Bontemps and Jack Conroy described Richardson as a 'fair octoroon whose queenly beauty became a legend in later years.' " The article clearly attributes the description to Bontemps and Conroy, instead of describing Richardson as an octoroon in Wikipedia's voice. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        But it links to octoroon which of course is not in the original quote but the link makes it a technical term, instead of generally descriptive, so Wikipedia does appear to be asserting we know they meant it in its technical mathematical sense. Thus, I suggest something like, . . . Arna Bontemps and Jack Conroy described Richardson as a fair woman "whose queenly beauty became a legend in later years." Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Done - modified the sentence as suggested with 'light-skinned' in place of 'fair'. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. That works. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions a grand child in a caption (source?) but no children?
    • The article does mention the Jones' daughter Lavinia a couple of times - just after their marriage, and also in the third paragraph of 'Antebellum life in Chicago.' Lavinia's daughter Theodora was born in ~1871, per a letter she wrote to the Illinois Historical Society. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mary_Jane_Richardson_Jones/archive1&oldid=1085344171"