Talk:William Davenport (slave trader)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bilorv (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

A slave ship

A slave ship

• ... that William Davenport (1725–1794) was one of the world's most prolific slave traders (pictured, an enslaved man), and by the number of ships disembarked, the single most prolific slave trader from the Port of Liverpool?

The ref William Davenport, the Slave Trade, and Merchant Enterprise in Eighteenth-Century Liverpool by Nicholas James Radburn (2009) says on page 13: "Throughout his thirty-eight year career as a ship owner, he invested in 163 slaving ventures, more than any other merchant in the history of the Liverpool slave trade. These vessels carried nearly 40,000 Africans to the Americas, and involved a personal investment from Davenport of £127,000, equivalent to £10 million sterling today. Davenport‘s lengthy involvement in the slave trade, coupled with his substantial personal investment made him one of the largest and most ubiquitous slaving merchants of his day."

5x expanded by Desertarun (talk). Self-nominated at 14:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - Perhaps instead of describing the conditions as "appalling" - which they of course were - it may be more neutral to describe them as "poor" or "harsh".
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: This is only my second DYK review. The only note I would make is that you may consider also shortening the hook to just say "...that William Davenport (1725-1794) was, by the number of ships disembarked, the single most prolific slave trader from the Port of Liverpool?". That way it doesn't use the title of "most prolific slave trader" twice in a row. Rizzle13 (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for the review. I've altered the word appalling and offered some Alt's below. Desertarun (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Alt1 ... that William Davenport (1725–1794) was one of the largest and most ubiquitous slaving merchants of his day (pictured, a slave ship)?

• Source snipped from Alt0 says "Davenport's lengthy involvement in the slave trade, coupled with his substantial personal investment made him one of the largest and most ubiquitous slaving merchants of his day"

• Alt2 ... that William Davenport was one of the world's most prolific slave traders (pictured, a slave ship)?

• Source snipped from Alt0 says "Davenport‘s lengthy involvement in the slave trade, coupled with his substantial personal investment made him one of the largest and most ubiquitous slaving merchants of his day"

Rizzle13, I'm surprised that you think "appalling" is not neutral, but "slave", as a noun, is. There was already one example of "enslaved people" or "enslaved person" in the article, and I've tried to change as many as I could. We should not essentialize the personhood of a victim of kidnapping and enslavement down to a single word. Anyway, there is another problem: the "Abolition" section really is not connected to the subject of the article--and so, the image (which was never simply the image of an enslaved person) isn't connected to the subject either. Nor do I see, given what the article says about the subject, an easy connection between the subject and the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Desertarun, maybe there is more in your sources. I do think that the two Alt hooks are great, but I don't think putting that image in there is appropriate. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hi, thanks for the review. I've switched the word slave in every instance I could find, I'm going to leave the removed content deleted, and I've added new pictures here of a slave ship. Desertarun (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment: strongly recommend that the dates in the hook be removed. I am striking ALT1, since it's a copyvio, and adding quotes for basically an entire hook won't fly. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the dates from Alt2. Desertarun (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've addressed all of the issues noted above but no-one has returned. Requesting new reviewer. Desertarun (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at this article with fresh eyes, it is a fivefold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The image is in the public domain, the Alt2 hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. No QPQ needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)