Talk:Monroe Edwards/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Mkativerata (talk · contribs) 19:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get this done over the next one to two days. My approach with GA reviews is simply to make the article as good as it possibly can be, so I'll make suggestions that go above and beyond the GA criteria. That being the case, you can choose to ignore them; doing so won't affect whether the article passes GA. This article seems, from my first read, to meet the criteria as it is comprehensive, appropriately sourced, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early life[edit]

[GA]"Nothing is known for sure of his childhood, but as he grew up he was considered very handsome, and usually dressed quite fashionably". The ANB source doesn't relate his handsomeness and fashionable dress to his youth or adolescent period. It just says, in relation to a much later life event, "The courtroom was crowded with both "ladies," who, it was supposed, wanted to see Edwards, a strikingly handsome man and always fashionably dressed".

Changed to "Nothing is known for sure of his childhood. As a grown man, he was considered very handsome, and usually dressed quite fashionably." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Morgan's relocation germane to the article? I know the ANB also mentions it, but unless Edwards moved with Morgan or re-joined him after the move, the relevance seems questionable.
I'm on the fence about it. I'm inclined to leave it in, as I'm still trying to chase down a couple of sources but ... it's not a big deal if you feel strongly that it should be gone. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[GA]"Soon after this" - it could conceivably be a five or six year gap between Morgan's relocation and Edwards' first slave trip.
changed to "Some time after this, Edwards met a slave trader and.."Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgery[edit]

[GA]"In late 1836 Edwards landed 170 blacks in Texas" - The source says it was late winter 1836, which would be early 1836, right?
Okay, so I stripped the "winter" out because I'm hoping to take this to FA and John (talk · contribs) has a pet peeve about using seasons as chronological markers (He bases this off WP:SEASON). Now I'm not happy with what I wrote, but I'm not happy with assuming it was early 1836. Given the seasons issue, why don't we go with "In 1836"... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)\[reply]
Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it would be wise to prune the middle part of the first paragraph a bit - because there is only one source, it runs very close to the source and picks up many of the source's unfortunate vagueness (like who exposed/determined the documents to be forgeries?)
[GA]The source isn't really clear on whether Dart was awarded the slaves and the plantation. On my reading, it seems to suggest he was awarded the slaves but not necessarily the plantation ("the possession of which" referring to "the 163 slaves remaining on Chenango plantation"). And this separate source suggests that Edwards might have flogged the plantation to a third party, robbing Dart of the chance to hold it.
Uh, "flogged"? Brit slang here? No clue what this means ... from the context, I think you mean sold it, but ... want to be sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, "flogged" as in sold. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, think I worked on both of these with some rewording - see what you think? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Edwards was said to have defrauded a company in Liverpool" - said by whom? The Dillingham source (p 52) doesn't equivocate (although refers to Curtis' "Life of Daniel Webster"), so why not say "Edwards defrauded a company in Liverpool".
Done. Vagueness is a medievalists best friend... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[GA]"But the Republic of Texas ambassador in London warned the English abolitionists against Edwards" - the source says the ambassador "succeeded in discrediting Edwards with the British government" and says nothing about the ambassador giving warnings to abolitionists.
I have vague memories of another source saying this ... or that someone warned the English abolitionists. Let me dig a bit further... if not, we'll change it to "English governement" Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "government" - cannot lay hands on what I thought I'd read. Following the twists and turns that this guy did sometimes left me very twisted around with my writing... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final scheme[edit]

"the New Orleans' brokers" - apostrophe seems wrong [I'd change it myself but I want to be sure]
Thought I saw that you changed this? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any information on where, or how, Edwards was arrested?

I haven't found any ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It was claimed that when he was arrested" - claimed by whom?
Source does not say. We could go with a bald claim but the source doesn't name a source and it's not his ADNB bio - if you're confortable with making it a bald statement, I'm good with that. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I reckon that if the source is unequivocal -- and it is ("over forty-four thousand dollars had been found in the trunk in his room") -- we can be too. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial[edit]

"None of his lawyers were ever paid, but the trial's proceedings were quickly published by a New York newspaper, The Herald, and ran to 50,000 copies" - the "but" suggests that the second clause contradicts or qualifies the first, but I don't see the connection.
Reworded and moved the sentence about the lawyers being stiffed to after the one about the newspaper. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[GA]This source says that Monroe was beaten to death by prison guards following an escape attempt. So does this.
Still trying to get a hold of the first book without paying through the nose for it. In all honesty, I'm always going to take a secondary source like the American Dictionary of National Biography over other sources - but I could see maybe adding that some sources say he was beaten to death, but most of the sources I've seen say he died of consumption (tuberculous), so I don't want to make it appear that there is a great deal of controversy. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I"ve placed the alternate idea of his death into a footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks interesting.
It's a primary source (contemporary newspaper article) and I try to avoid using them - interpreting primary sources is what historians get paid to do. And while I did study history at college/university, it was medieval history and I am not comfortable using primary American sources - it's a totally different type of historical work. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

This section looks good.

Lead[edit]

[GA]"before settling in Texas where he smuggled slaves into Brazil" - the "where" doesn't work because the slaves went from Africa to Brazil, and not from Texas.
reworded. Work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[GA]The second paragraph of the lead could use a bit of work. There are four mentions of the word forge* in the first two sentences, which grates. "Edwards was sentenced to 10 years of prison and died in 1847 while still in prison" is another case of repeated words.
Reworded, hopefully this is better? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the section-by-section review. I'll put it on hold for now. After the above points have been considered (as mentioned above, not all need to be acted upon), I'll then do a final assessment against the GA criteria. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this - will hopefully get to most of these this weekend. Might be helpful if you pointed out the things you feel must be changed for GA status? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The must-change (or must-be-considered) things would be the sourcing, accuracy and lead comments, which I've noted above with "[GA]". --Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wild weekend, starting work. Sorry for the delay. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hurry on my account; I'm not keen on deadlines. I have made some responses to some of your replies, above. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten most of this ... please let me know if these work for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they all look good, thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The GA criteria[edit]

Well-written: yes. The prose is clear and concise and any grammatical errors have been eliminated.
Verifiable with no original research: yes, I checked a number of the sources quite closely, and (minor) inaccuracies found have been addressed.
Broad in its coverage: yes. There are holes in the biography but that is a natural consequence of the kind of biography this is. I'm satisfied that the important/notable aspects of the subject's life are covered in appropriate detail.
Neutral: no issues here.
Stable: no issues here.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: yes.

So it's a pass. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]