Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Zong massacre/archive1

Comments by Crisco_1492:

• Who's James Kelsall (footnote)?
  • I've added "the Zong's first mate" in brackets. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• slave-trading syndicate from Liverpool, England, who - I'm pretty sure a syndicate would be "which"
  • Done.Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• When the ship ran low on water following navigational mistakes, the crew decided to kill some of the slaves, allegedly so that an insurance payment could be collected. - Don't like this string of commas. Perhaps have the bits about insurance together? Or perhaps cut the sentence altogether and merge the second paragraph in with this one.
  • Done as suggested. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• The Zong was later described as a "square stern ship" of 110 tons burden. - The whole "was described as" is a little redundant... could be trimmed.
  • Done. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• been mayor of the city in 1762. - Which city?
  • Done -- Liverpool. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• this may have prepared him to participate in the massacre which occurred on the Zong. - According to?
  • I've reworded the sentence to read: "It is likely, therefore, that Collingwood had already witnessed the mass-murder of slaves—as the historian Jeremy Krikler has commented, this may have prepared him psychologically to participate in the massacre which occurred on the Zong". Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• the disgraced governor of Anomabu, a British fortification near Cape Coast Castle. - Disgraced? Why? Maybe worth a footnote, if we don't have an article on him.
  • I've added an extra sentence to the article. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Fatal voyage is not an NPOV title
  • Changed to "The middle passage". Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• taking on water - Do you mean for drinking, or as the result of an accident?
  • Changed to "... drinking water..." Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• The crew could not have known that the island had been captured by France, one of Britain's opponents in the American Revolutionary War, in June 1781. - If they didn't stop there, and Tobago-based troops did not attack, I see no reason for this statement.
  • I've moved this to a footnote. The point is that their failure to stop at Tobago should be explained by incompetence/recklessness on the part of the crew, not because Tobago was occupied by a foreign power. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If that conclusion is supported by the sources you're citing, it's valid information but should be stated explicitly, not implied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not stated directly by the source, but left as an implication, so I've removed the footnote. Celuici (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• it appears that he was in overall command of the Zong, despite not being a member of the vessel's crew. - According to whom?
  • I've modified this to: "Robert Stubbs had captained a slave ship several decades earlier, and he temporarily commanded the Zong in Collingwood's absence...". This is supported by the source, and I think avoids the need for an in-text attribution. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Right. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• This breakdown of the command structure on the ship might explain why subsequent navigational errors were committed, and why checks on supplies of drinking water were not made. - This too
  • It's now: "According to James Walvin, ...". Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• 300 miles - Convert template?
  • Done. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Having heard the shrieking of the victims as they were thrown into the water, - Check for neutrality (shrieking, especially)
  • The source says 'Shrieks', so I've changed 'shrieking' to 'shrieks'. The word appears in the testimony of James Kelsall, an eye-witness. So I don't think there issues with neutrality. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• the best record of the massacre - According to whom?
  • Deleted this. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• may have been deliberately destroyed.- Again
  • Changed to: "The ship's insurers claimed that it had been deliberately destroyed, which the Gregson syndicate denied." Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• a famous freed slave, - Famous is not NPOV
  • Done. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Is there not more information about the first trial in the books?
  • No, it is very poorly documented. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• How much influence did Sharp have on the insurers' legal proceedings? I have trouble imagining them calling the killing of slaves "murder" on their own.
  • I've added a sentence about James Walvin's speculations on this. It's very likely that Sharp had a direct influence, but the evidence isn't available. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Mansfield's Motivations" is almost all opinion; we need attribution.
  • Done -- this is mostly based on Krikler's work, which is referenced. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Better, but you've repeated "argued" now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I've reworded again to: "Jeremy Krikler has argued that Mansfield wanted to ensure that commercial law remained as helpful to Britain's overseas trade as possible, and as a consequence was keen to uphold the principle of "general average", even in relation to the killing of humans." Celuici (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• That's it for today... a bit... much of it to do with WP:INTEXT attribution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• writing letters to newspapers, the Lords Commissioners of Admiralty, and the Prime Minister, the Duke of Portland. - Confusing with the comma after Prime Minister; seems as though he and the Duke of Portland were different men.
  • Changed to: "... and the Prime Minister (the Duke of Portland).". Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Not quite sure of this. Would it be uncouth in BrE to address him by his name instead of his title? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
      • It would certainly be incorrect to use his common name without the title. I could put "William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland" instead, but that would create a very long and complex paranthetical statement, while "Duke of Portland" is perfectly adequate since that is the name he would have been known as when he was prime minister in 1783. Celuici (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• thereby demonstrating the challenge that the early abolitionists faced. - According to?
  • Added "According to Seymour Drescher..." at start of sentence. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Do the other sources support the impact being limited? Perhaps "The immediate impact of the Zong massacre on public opinion was very limited, demonstrating – according to (historian? legal expert?) Seymour Drescher – the challenge that the early abolitionists faced
      • Changed as suggested. It's only Drescher who makes the comment about this typifying the challenge faced by early abolitionists, although the basic point about the Zong massacre not receiving much attention in the early 1780s is made by a few of the other sources. Celuici (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Just who is he though? Why is his opinion relevant? If he's a lorry driver (random example) his opinion has little impact. Unless you state it explicitly, we won't know if he is a historian or what. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I've described him as "...the historian of abolitionism Seymour Drescher", which I think gives an accurate reflection of who he is. I've moved this sentence down two paragraphs, so that it sits with the other material about the Zong massacre's importance in changing public opinion. The significance of Drescher's comment is that it highlights the dramatic change in public sentiment towards slavery that occurred in the 1780s -- and I have mentioned this directly in the same paragraph. Celuici (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• atrocities - Very loaded word
  • Changed to "killings". Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• signifying the silencing of African voices about the massacre. - According to?
  • Added "According to Anita Rupprecht...", creating new sentence. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Who is she? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Changed to: "According to the cultural historian Anita Rupprechect...". Celuici (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• The play An African Cargo by Margaret Busby, staged at Greenwich Theatre in 2007, focuses on the appeal by the insurers of the Zong. - What makes this worth a mention? Also, single-sentence paragraphs are not generally a good idea.
  • Agreed -- I deleted this a while back but it was re-added. I've removed it again. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• In 2007 a memorial stone was erected at Black River, Jamaica, near where the Zong would have landed. - Another single-sentence paragraph
  • Combined with following paragraph. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose on prose and attribution. Needs some more work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your helpful comments -- I hope to get most of these resolved in the next few days. Celuici (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Alright. Be sure to ping again here, and I'll revisit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I've been through the list and made changes in response to your points. Do please let me know if you have any further comments. Celuici (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)