Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Claiborne/archive2

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 not promoted 02:21, 12 February 2008.

---

William Claiborne

previous FAC

Check external links

This article was nominated last year, and the nomination was subsumed by an argument over whether to link years. I've tried to go back and address substantive concerns raised at the time, though I may have missed some. Geraldk (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• The current position of Kiyarrllston:Neutral Support.
  - Queries"However, Claiborne was offered a position as a land surveyor in the new colony of Virginia, and arrived at Jamestown in 1621." and what did he do as a land surveyor? - "business acumen" or not, I have no clue how one would derive a large fortune from (please take a look at this article) surveying-
  --- Political acument seems to be more accurate anyway, since most of his wealth came from grants and salary he secured from the colonial council. I've added in a sentence to better explain why surveying was lucrative for him. Geraldk (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  When it is said that his father was an alderman - the article on alderman states two "Although the term originated in England, it had no clear definition there until the 19th century, as each municipal corporation had its own constitution." - is there a way to clarify what this job was? - was Claiborne's father the "owner of a small shop"? to say so would be much less vague than to say he was a "small-time merchant".
  --- I've tried to clarify his father's career, though none of the sources I can find are any more specific about what exactly the role of an alderman was in King's Lynn, Norfolk at the time. Let me know if that meets your concern here. Geraldk (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  " Around 1627 he began to trade for furs with the native Susquehannock on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay and two of its largest tributaries," while chesapeake bay and susquehannock are linked - the more context relevant "fur trade" is not linked to.
  --- Added link Geraldk (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  "The family's business was not enough to make it rich, and so Claiborne's older brother was apprenticed in London,[...]" - was there a "cast" or "caste" system in place- a system of classes? could this section possibly link to somewhere regarding economic conditions for people in England during the 1600's?
  --- Will have to research this further if you think it's necessary to add more to it - I can't find anything in the sources about Claiborne, and 17th century British economic history does not seem, for some utterly unfathomable reason, to be a popular topic on the web. There was a system of classes in the sense that the nobility existed, and that there was a developing mercantile middle class, but in the sense of caste-like socioeconomic stratification, I don't know what his brother's apprenticeship says about the role of his family in the society of the time. Geraldk (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  "William Claiborne (c. 1600 – c. 1677)[1] (also spelled William Clayborne)" are the second set of parenthesis necessary? did he spell it both ways? - are his descendants of only one or many ways of writing it? (why is this only in the lead?)
  --- It's referring to the flexibility in spelling that was common at the time, and his name appears as Clayborne in a couple period sources, though as far as I know his descendants all spell it Claiborne. Do you have a suggestion as to how to clarify this for readers? Geraldk (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

-Kiyarrllston 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"17th century British economic history does not seem, for some utterly unfathomable reason, to be a popular topic on the web." hehehe ... I have no idea who would know where to find this kind of information either.

I think just a short note somewhere in the body regarding the different spellings would be good. do you think claiborne has anything worthwhile for this article? are those part of his family?- searching for clayborne on wikipedia got me lots of hits :D

note- changed to support, I wish you a nice FAC

--Kiyarrllston 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• MOS breach in the first caption: unspaced en dashes required.

Wasn't sure where you meant, but fixed it in the other people note at the top of the article and in the first footnote. Geraldk (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hate those fully spelt out and capitalised items in the Notes: "Page". Easier to read a more standard "p. " and "pp. " (can paste into Word and do a global change).

Done, and thanks for the suggestion of doing it in Word. Saved me some time. Geraldk (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please avoid starting a sentence with "But". Tony (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, I hadn't noticed that. But it's fixed now. Geraldk (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Comment. I think this is a very well-written article. If you can fix the first three comments below, which are all MOS breaches, then I'll be happy to support. The fourth is just a suggestion.(Full disclosure: I was the sole peer reviewer for this article last summer.)

**Need nonbreaking spaces between numbers and their units or qualifiers (examples, 200 acre, 30 pounds, 300 colonists)

• • There's an instance of acres that doesn't have corresponding hectares
  • Image captions shouldn't end in periods unless they are complete sentences
  • Is there any way to work into the lead that he was involved in the first naval battles in North America? That is really interesting information.

Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No response from the nominator? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No response needed. These are trivialities; either fix them or do not; they are not the difference between a good article and a great one. The insistence on non-breaking spaces at points (the beginning of a long paragraph) where only very unusual monitors would break lines is particularly silly. But I am glad to see that some of this review has actually focused on content and clarity; a welcome change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If I'd found any content or clarity issues I would have mentioned them. While MOS issues may not be the difference between a "good" article and a "great" one, they are a part of the featured article criteria and enough MOS-type breaches could be the difference between a "good article" and a "featured article". It would by nice to have a response from the nominator to say whether or not he has even seen the comments. Karanacs (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: I checked Geraldk's contributions, and he hasn't made any edits since Jan 31, so he may not have been back to this page since I commented. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Most unfortunate that the nominator has gone six days without following this FAC, as the previous FAC was also closed when the nominator stopped following. I'll give it another day or two, but nominators are expected to follow FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the nominator's absence, I went ahead and implemented the MoS fixes and made a mention in the intro of the first naval battles in North American waters. I'll be glad to take care of any other minor issues such as these if they come up.-Jeff ^(talk) 05:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking over, Jeff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have a concern about the use of Appleton's for dates and other biographical details. As our own article on on Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography states, it has some credibility issues. I don't think Claiborne is a totally fictious entry (I'd better not, I have ancestry that traces to him!) but it might be better to source to something that dosen't have credibility issues. I'll try to dig through my genealogy files to find some recent articles that would give his biographical details.Ealdgyth | Talk 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. There are a few things that are unclear to me, or just seem a bit odd:

• "As the settlement on Kent Island was progressing, the Privy Council had proposed to George Calvert that he be granted a charter for lands north of the Virginia colony ...". What does "as" mean in this case? "Because", or "at the same time"?
• "a retroactive salary". Would retrospective not be the more usual thing to say?
• "salary of 60 pounds a year". That looks rather odd from the perspective of an English reader. "£60" would be more conventional. I accept that an American writer might well write "60 dollars", but the dollar isn't also a unit of weight.
• "This happened to be to Claiborne's private advantage". Perhaps reads a little bit too informally?
• "In 1635, a Maryland commissioner named Thomas Cornwallis swept the Chesapeake for illegal traders and captured one of Claiborne's pinnaces in the Pocomoke Sound". I'm unclear what "swept" means in this context, and I've got no idea what a pinnace is.
• From the lead: "Claiborne repeatedly attempted and failed to regain Kent Island". Nowhere before does it say that he lost Kent Island, or that he ever held it in the first place.

If the above issues were addressed I'd support this article.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Because Geraldk is the one that did the research here, I probably wouldn't be able to fix most of those unfortunately. My comments on those points:

• I'm not sure what is meant here either, it would be an easy fix though, by replacing "As" with "While" or "Because".
• Probably, "retroactive" sounds like his past salary was changed, while "retrospective" would just mean his past salary.
• That makes sense, I'll fix it right now.
• Maybe it could be reworded as "This was to Claiborne's private advantage". I'm wary of changing it though because at the same time that rewording makes the sentence sound less interesting.
• "Swept" in this context means that he searched the bay for illegal traders. I would assume "pinnace" is a type of boat, but I could be wrong.
• It should probably be worked into the sentence, for example as "After losing control of Kent Island to Maryland, Claiborne repeatedly attempted and failed to regain it."-Jeff ^(talk) 03:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Pinnace is a type of small boat. I'm still hunting for a better biographical data source. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, prose/comprehensiveness/MoS. There are some misc. prose and MoS items to fix, but my main problem is comprehensiveness as outlined below.
  • "Claiborne became a wealthy planter, a trader, and a major figure in the politics of the colony." It's not necessary to have "a" before each list item.
    • While the sentence could stand recasting, "Claiborne became a wealthy planter, trader, and major figure..." does not mean the same thing; the a-less version implies that he was wealthy as a trader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed, my bad. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "He was a central figure in the disputes between the colonists of Maryland and of Virginia, partly because of his trading post on Kent Island in the Chesapeake Bay, which provoked the first naval battles in North American waters." The way this is written, it could be the disputes or his trading post (or even Chesapeake Bay) that provoked the naval battles.
    • No difference of meaning between the first two alternatives; the last is impossible. The Chesapeake Bay does not "provoke" outside epic poetry. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I disgree. The first means that his being involved in the disputes provoked the battle; the second means that just the existence of the trading post provoked the battle. The reader deserves the clarification. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The next sentence is also confusing. First, it is out of chronological order. We read that Claiborne fought to regain Kent Island before we know why and from whom. Second, we read that Kent Island "became" Maryland which gives the impression that Maryland is wholly made up of Kent Island.
  • "However, Claiborne was offered a position as a land surveyor in the new colony of Virginia..." A sentence at the beginning of a new paragraph should not begin with "however". If the concept is that closely related to the previous para, it should be connected.
  • "Calvert was not welcomed by the Virginians, both because his Catholicism offended their Protestantism..." Suggest rewording. It was not Catholicism that offended Protestantism, it was his being a Catholic that offended them.
    • His Catholicism in this construction means "the fact he was a Catholic". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Not the greatest, but also not worth arguing over. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Claiborne tried to get it back, and the first naval battles in North American waters ensued on April 23 and May 10, 1635 in which three Virginians were killed and Claiborne was defeated, although his settlement on Kent Island remained." Too long, says too many different things. Addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • done Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "In May 1638, fresh from his defeat over Kent Island, Claiborne received a commission from the Providence Land Company, who were advised by his old friend Maurice Thomson, to create a new colony on Ruatan Island off the coast of Honduras in the Caribbean Sea." Same comment as above.
  • I suppose it's out of scope for this article, but I really don't understand why Cæcilius Calvert would appoint a "pro-Parliament Protestant" to govern Maryland. The Calverts are described throughout the article has pro-Monarchy Catholics.
    • Two reasons suggest themselves: Maryland became more and more Protestant with time, and established Anglicanism after the Restoration; and 1648 was a year of Parliamentary victory in the English Civil War. Appointing a Parliamentarian may have averted confiscation. It would be nice to know which, but since it's a question of Calvert's motives, there may not be consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • All the same, it needs to be researched and clarified. That was definitely a moment in the article when I went, "Huh?" --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • General narrative remark: The article really glosses over the (I assume) armed engagements where Kent Island was taken and retaken throughout the article. These seem pivotal events in Claiborne's life but the majority of the article focuses on the political tactics he employed. The first naval battles in North American waters seemingly involved him, you said he was defeated, however you only dedicate once sentence to what was certainly a major life event for Claiborne. Likewise, you do not describe how Claiborne seized the island in 1644 or how he lost it again in 1646. Some of the questions the reader is left with: Was Claiborne personally involved in the skirmishes? Did he maintain his own armed force? Was he ever injured? Was he a sailor?
  • The insertion of Claiborne's personal life at the end of the article is rather abrupt. The reader has no idea Claiborne married until the end of the article. I presume he had children - where is that information?
  • MoS problems:
    • The last sentence in the lead - if a period is part of a quoted sentence, the period should be inside the end quote.
      • One of the difficulties of "logical" punctuation; it is impossible to be certain whether the original punctuation used a semi-colon, or even a comma, in which case this would be correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Understood. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • En dashes in the infobox should not be spaced. I see that is part of the infobox code, which is unfortunate. Whoever maintains that infobox needs to fix it. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • This is MOScruft. Go edit the infobox, if you care; it has nothing to do with the quality of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Agreed, not really an article-related item. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.