Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benjamin Jackson (sailor)/archive1

Benjamin Jackson (sailor)

Featured article candidates/Benjamin Jackson (sailor)/archive1

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A man and a woman enslaved in the United States find an opportunity during the War of 1812 to escape their home country and settle down as free people in rural Nova Scotia. Half a century later, their son travels to the American South as a US Navy sailor in the war to end slavery. His grave went unmarked until 2010 when he was honored with a Civil War-era military funeral service. This is one of those instances where you go on vacation, read a historical marker, look to Wikipedia for more information, then end up overhauling the article. I have 7 successful FA nominations so far, plus two FLs. This is my first using non-American English, so I would especially appreciate if anyone can find me misusing Canadian English. Thank you in advance for reading through the article and commenting on the nomination! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVetCrop.png/File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVet.jpg need a US tag

{{PD-1996}} added since Canadian copyright law would place it in the public domain as of 1990 (75 years past the 1905 date of creation). Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: The earliest publication I can find is the 2010 newspaper article cited in the article. Your question has prompted me to check on the image's original creation date and, according to the record at the archive that holds the photo, it was created in 1903. For that reason, I have changed the US copyright tag again, this time to {{PD-US-unpublished}}.

File:Harper's_weekly_(1864)_(14784619962)_Crop.jpg: is a more specific tag available?

{{PD-US-expired}} added given the 19th-century publication date. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gun_deck_USS_Richmond_LOC_4a14697v_Crop.jpg: why is this believed to be a work of the federal government? It's credited to what appears to be a private company. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I changed the tag to {{PD-US-unpublished}} since the photographer is unknown but the work was created before 1904. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for the review! I believe the image issues are fully addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I believe all image issues you brought up are resolved, including the issue with File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVetCrop.png/File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVet.jpg. Do you agree? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

Happy to take a look, I'll try to get to this soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: This is a courtesy ping since it has been a little over a week since your above edit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder. Here's what I have:

Lead and infobox

"He suffered a serious hand injury and received a Civil War Campaign Medal" → is this the same medal from the previous sentence about the grenade (I assumed so, given the hand injury)? If so, I'd break off the previous sentence after "naval mines" and have a separate sentence about the grenade episode that includes this information rather than repeating the medal bit

The two medals appear to be separate, so I've reworded that part of the lead to hopefully make that clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Jackson retired from commercial sailing in 1875, but continued managing" → You can change "Jackson" to "He" since we're still talking about him from the previous sentence, where he's named

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from the quote above, remove the comma

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Gun #10, USS Richmond" → unless this is standard practice for these types of things, I would recommend changing to "Gun No. 10" per MOS:POUND

I can't find a standard. The source uses #, but I think its more appropriate to follow the MOS, so I just changed to match your recommendation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

"their parents petitioned" → I know what you mean here, but "their" could be a little ambiguous since you've mentioned the children and the families in the first part of this sentence

I changed "their parents" to "those families". Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In adulthood, Jackson was more than six feet tall" → this doesn't quite fit in here; I would also lean towards questioning its relevance but if you can find a place where it fits I wouldn't object

Removed. Because Jackson is not a super well-documented person, I feel like I need to include every fact I could find about him. This was obviously the hardest to weave into the narrative. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War

"At this point in the Civil War" → Does this refer to the specific date of his enlistment or the duration of his service?

Both are true, but I rewrote that to reduce the possibility future readers will wonder. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Exploiting Mexico's neutrality, the Confederacy used that country's ports" → it seems a tad clunky to me to name "Mexico" and then use "that country" later in the same sentence. I feel like a rewording that can eliminate the need for separate clauses would be better, perhaps "The Confederacy exploited Mexico's neutrality by using its ports for international trade" or something better you can come up with

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"gun #10" → same POUND note as above, if applicable

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"a role he continued to serve" → this is a little picky, but I'd prefer "a role in which he continued to serve" since it sounds more natural to say you "serve in a role" rather than "serve a role"

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"At the time, mines were called "torpedoes"." → I think this would be better as a footnote that came after the quote, rather than a full sentence in and of itself. As is, it's a bit confusing as the reader why I'm being told this until I read the next sentence

I think this fact is too crucial for understanding the quote to be relegated to a footnote. Looking over that section, I can't think of a better way to include Farragut's famous quote and have the reader understand what it means. Let me know if you have other thoughts on this. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy Definitely see where you're coming from. Perhaps the two sentences could be combined with a semicolon? "At the time, mines were called "torpedoes"; following the command "Damn the torpedoes..." or something like that? This won't keep me from supporting but the wording of just that sentence still seems off just a bit to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I combined the "at the time" sentence with the previous one rather than the following one. Thank you for the idea. The same information is there in the same order, but maybe now the "torpedoes" definition seems less disconnected. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"from the Mississippi" → recommend a link to Mississippi River

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late life

"Nova Scotia became one of four provinces via Canadian Confederation" → this reads a little awkwardly to me; perhaps "as a result of Canadian Confederation"?

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"in Washington, DC," → recommend using the article title style "Washington, D.C."

Sure. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Paris's title (which is quite unwieldy) should be capitalized to stay consistent with the other titles in that sentence

Thank you for catching that. Another editor moved everything around in that sentence, which I didn't notice made this necessary. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very nicely written article, that's all I was able to find. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Thank you for taking the time to read through this article and to write out your comments. Do you think any issues still need to be addressed? Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Left a comment above but that alone won't keep me from a support. Nice work. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to the article and your help in improving it! I did sort-of follow your recommendation regarding the torpedoes issue. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

The lead seems very long for a relatively short article, and MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".

Thank you for pointing to LEADLENGTH! It is now compliant. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the use of a review of Lincoln's Trident: The West Gulf Blockading Squadron During the Civil War rather than the book itself deliberate?

Yes, in the sense that it provides a summary. I used it as a source for some basic information about the WGBS to contextualize the information more specific to Jackson that I got from other sources. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"to accept a position as ship's cook on the Saint John, New Brunswick-based Marlborough, sailing from Liverpool to New York City." This implies that he boarded the ship in Liverpool. Is that correct? If so, is it known how he got there?

Thank you for catching that! Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need a sentence or so explaining what the - or at least a - blockade was.

I think the first two sentences of the Enlistment section now make that clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. How would you feel about "At this point in the Civil War, the Union blockade of the Confederate States of America was working to cut off those states' maritime trade" → 'At this point in the Civil War, the Union was imposing a naval blockade on the Confederate States of America in order to cut off those states' maritime trade'?

I like that better. Recommendation accepted, sans "in order". Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"advancing to a new post on the USS Potomac". Suggest "advancing" → 'moving'.

The VANSDA source said "advanced", so I figured I would use that here to make clear that he was moving into a higher status position. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

"actively blockading off the coast of Veracruz, Mexico." That should be 'actively blockading the coast of Veracruz, Mexico.' Also, at this point a reader is thinking "Why is the Union navy blockading Mexico?!"

I added a little bit to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Farragut commanded his fleet into the bay". "commanded" → 'ordered'.

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Documentation of the injury varies in both cause and severity." Do you mean something like 'Documentation relating to the injury varies in its descriptions of both its cause and severity'?

Yes! I inserted your language with one word change. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Like most Black Canadian veterans of the Union Navy,[d] Jackson returned to his home country" read together with note d "About half of the Black Canadian veterans of the Union Army stayed in the US" does not make sense to me.

I added a couple of words to the footnote to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments! I have addressed the first few. I'll get to the other ones soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All comments are addressed. It seems I was able to get to them sooner than I thought! Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Benjamin Jackson (January 2, 1835 – August 20, 1915) was a Canadian sailor and farmer"; "Like most Black British North American veterans of the Union Navy". Canadian, British?

Jackson was born in the British North American colony of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia was still a British colony until two years after the Civil War ended, when it gained independence through confederation with the other now-Canadian provinces (48 years before Jackson's death). So it seems right to me to introduce him as Canadian in the lead, but refer to the Civil War vets as British North American if they are from anywhere in what is now Canada. Let me know if you have further thoughts on that, particularly if there is a policy on this I'm not aware of. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is important information about Jackson and should be in the article. I think your summary above - in green - is admirable. (I assume it is readily sourced. :-) ) Why not insert it somewhere in "Early life"?

I reworded the first two sentences of the Early life section to clarify that Nova Scotia was a colony at the time of his birth. I also added a sentence to the Employment and family section to mark the moment when the Jacksons became Canadian citizens via Confederation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"He was still working as a peddler by 1907." "by" → 'in'.

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Jackson started receiving a military pension of US$4 (equivalent to $79.62 in 2023) a month upon discharge from the navy." Suggest 'Jackson received a military pension of US$4 (equivalent to $79.62 in 2023) a month upon discharge from the navy.'

Accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caption: "Gun deck of the USS Richmond". Perhaps mention when the photo was taken?

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The pension increased to US$8 a month in 1888, then $10 in 1890, then $14 in 1892." Maybe 'The pension increased to US$8 a month in 1888, $10 in 1890, and $14 in 1892' to avoid the repeat of "then"?

Recommendation accepted. I'll work on the next three comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"He later increased it to $17 a month, then $20 circa 1910". "He"? Do you mean 'It was'?

I was trying to make clear that the increases came because of Jackson's persistence with the pension office, but I realize the other sentences around this one make that clear. Changed to "it was". Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For "circa" use {{circa}}.

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"at a Civil War-era funeral service." What is "a Civil War-era funeral service"? Does it involve time travel?

Ha! Yes, time travel. For real, I've reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shame. I was getting excited.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for the additional comments! I particularly appreciate having the eyes of a Civil War buff read over the article. I have addressed all of your comments. Do you think anything warrants further discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. A couple of thoughts above. (I would not consider myself a Civil War buff, I am not even American. But I am a MilHist buff and passably knowledgeable on the age of sail.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I feel better about the whole Canada vs. British North America dynamic after adding a little more clarifying content. Do you see anything else worth discussing about the article?

Matarisvan

I reviewed this article at the peer review and found it well written and likely to pass FAC. There is only one thing I would like to suggest, Dugan Murphy:

Consider restructuring the lead so that it is 4 paragraphs long, which is the FAC criteria.

Gog the Mild made me aware (above) that MOS:LEADLENGTH says this article should have a 1- or 2-paragraph lead section, so I reduced it down to what it currently is. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once that is done, I could do a source review if you don't mind. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Thank you for hopping into this nomination! I would very much appreciate a source review. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: I offer you this a courtesy ping because it has been a week since your last edit. I hope you're still able to complete a source review! Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am on a work trip till the 22nd and don't have my laptop on me. I hope to get a source review done by the 23rd or 24th. I hope that is alright. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators are free to say otherwise, but I think that should be just fine. I'm still working on attracting more reviewers to look at other aspects of the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine Matarisvan, if you could do a source review it would be much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, had completely slipped up on my timeline for this. I will try to get a source review done by end of day today. Matarisvan (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy and @Gog the Mild, a support from me on the text, source review to be done below tomorrow, if that is ok. Matarisvan (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading through the text! I look forward to seeing what comments you have about the sources. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

In the lede, I might mention that he was likely a substitute before going into details of his service. It seems out of place.

Reordered and reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Jackson earned a Civil War pension for more than 50 years," I might say "received" rather than "earned". He earned it through his service, he received it later.

Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1867, Canadian Confederation made Nova Scotia one of four provinces; Jackson and his family became Canadian citizens" I have my doubts on this. I did not think Canada had a separate citizenship until 1947. I would not think that Jackson's status as a British subject changed in 1867.

You are exactly right. Thank you for catching that. I've reworded that sentence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Thank you for these comments, especially for catching the citizenship thing. That was me misreading the source and not fully grasping the difference between a subject and a citizen. Do you see any other issues keeping this from being FAC-quality? Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It looks good. No, I didn't see anything in particular that would prevent it from becoming a FA, but I didn't check into the sources in detail and it's not really my area of expertise (such as it is) so there may be things I would miss. Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Hi Dugan Murphy, will do this tomorrow if that is ok. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: This is your courtesy ping. Have you had a chance yet to look through the sources? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my computer malfunctioned, I just got it repaired, will get this one done by tomorrow. Matarisvan (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes:

#6: ok.
#4: "Both sons died in childhood" in our text, "Three daughters survived to adulthood". Could be contended by other reviewers but ok with me.
#11: ok.
#22 and #24: ok.
#26: ok.
#35: ok.

Well, the review is a pass, if any reviewer would like to do more checks, they can. Matarisvan (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking through the sources! I appreciate it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would really appreciate it if you could check out a PR I opened up recently, linked here. Thanks in advance Matarisvan (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I don't know much about Turkey or the 2nd century BCE, but I've been through FAC a few times, so I may be able to come up with some helpful comments for your PR. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]