Talk:Elisabeth Samson/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 17:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "File:Map of Suriname in 1737.jpg" needs a US PD tag.
 * ✅. Added because I am pretty sure that since it was printed in 1758 that is waaaaay before 1925. SusunW (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Does the article really need two photographs of 22 Wagenwegstraat?
 * Need, probably not. But there aren't any images of her and it seemed weird to me to have no lead photograph or to separate the locator map from a photograph. Because it faces three streets and each face is different, there are actually three sides, but "that" seemed like overkill. SusunW (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Three sides plus a location map would be overkill if the article were on the house! You don't think that two is pushing things?
 * Seems weird not to have a lead image, but so be it. ✅ SusunW (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If I were you, which I'm not, I would leave the one at the top. Or move "File:Tekening van Clevia in Suriname - Paramaribo - 20419962 - RCE.jpg" up there.
 * Okay, done. Would that we had an image of her. Surely she had a portrait done, but I'm totally unable to find anything. SusunW (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Consider unlinking "coffee".
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Consider linking "plantation".
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "two small coffee plantations and slaves" Suggests that the slaves were also small, and possibly only two of them.
 * Well now, they might have been small, but I see your point. Flipped it to say "After acquiring slaves and two small coffee plantations" ✅ SusunW (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "Samson entered a relationship with Carl Otto Creutz" Are we talking about an exclusively business relationship here? One might assume so as the first part of the sentence is "After acquiring two small coffee plantations and slaves". But then you refer to "the couple". Either way, could it be clarified?
 * I'm not sure and I don't think anyone else could be either, unless of course there is a diary of some sort. Candlin says in OUP that they became lovers; Hoefte says Samson became his concubine and McLeod says "It must have been during these days (in Samson's early 20s) that Elisabeth started to co-habit with Carl Otto Creutz, however, the exact dates are somewhat vague". This last one to me seems like the most accurate, as I don't think we know when their relationship became a romance. Creutz boarded with her brother-in-law with whom Samson was also living, when he first moved to Suriname, so maybe it was a romantic connection from the beginning, maybe it wasn't. SusunW (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * After reading the question below, I just inserted "business and personal relationship" without any references as to which came first. ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "purchased the rest of his siblings from Susteren's widow and worked until his death in 1732 to free each of them" I am not sure this works; you seem to be saying the same thing twice. And the stock phrase "worked until his death" maybe needs looking at.
 * Purchasing and emancipating are not the same. Buying them only means "the chattel" became his property. Emancipation was a legal process known as manumission that required someone paying fees to have documents drawn up and recorded, oftentimes obtaining permission from a governing authority. I've changed it to read "before his death in 1732 had managed to obtain manumission for each of them". If that works, then ✅. SusunW (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "she went to the Netherlands to appeal the verdict ... while Samson was residing abroad." Do we know if "residing abroad" meant that she stayed in the Netherlands?
 * yes, she lived in The Hague. Changed it to say "...in The Hague, where Samson was residing in exile, and worked..." ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "Creutz was awarded a 1,000-acre plantation, Clevia, in 1849. To work the plantation, Samson brought her 200 slaves" You need something inbetween about the nature/terms of their relationship, especially with regard to Clevia, to explain to a reader why Samson was working the plantation.
 * Okay, I'll grant you that, but how? Given the chicken and egg nature of it. Perhaps just business and personal? If that works, then ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "To work the plantation, Samson brought her 200 slaves" Has "her" slipped in by mistake?
 * Absolutely not a mistake. They were hers. Not his. Though they ultimately owned other property jointly, she and only she retained her ownership of her slaves. Had she married him, she would have been at a decided disadvantage and as later evidence shows, once she did marry, her spouse ruined not only her legacy but other family members. SusunW (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. So should it be brought or bought; if bought, then "bought her 200 slaves" could be understood to mean he purchased the slaves from her. So maybe "To work the plantation, Samson bought 200 slaves for her, who ... "?
 * Pretty sure it is brought. McLeod says she came into the partnership with labor capital. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I get it. I have made a minor edit which I think will make that passage more understandable, but I=f you disagree, or just don't like it, feel free to revert it.


 * "who remained her personal property" I'm not sure what this is getting at. If she bought something, why might she not retain ownership of it?
 * Dearest Gog, women were property (and typically not even legally citizens). Until the suffrage movement, and the nationality laws: 1933 in the Americas, 1948 in Britain, and 1957 for much of the rest of the world. Women could not separately own or control their own assets. Heck, until the 1970s, most women weren't even allowed to open a bank account or have credit in their own names. I've added a note explaining, but am not sure it is what you wanted? SusunW (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah. Not so long ago in a FAC of one of mine it was suggested that my phrasing "verged on objectification" of women. To which I responded "This was the 14th century: objectification! I would want to be cautious of giving a reader the impression that men of the period imputed volition to women." I have a habit of using rhetorical questions in reviews; I find it a gentler and more productive method of interaction. (Plus, of course, when I really don't know, it is often taken as rhetorical. ) I mean that our mythical, typical Wikipedian reader may not understand that point. (Personally I am amazed that young Elisabeth didn't get horsewhipped and shipped to Carolina. That being what happens these days to uppity women in much of the world, regardless of colour.)
 * You always find a way to make me laugh (and typically choke on my water or coffee). But seriously, it is a situation that most people don't know, so it does make sense to add the note. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "In 1750, the plantation was registered" With whom and what was its practical significance?
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "Their 44 slaves" Separate from "her 200 slaves". (The terminology suggests that the 44 slaves were the only ones they owned, jointly at any rate.)
 * Those 44 were the house slaves. Hoefte says when Creutz died La Solitude had 13 slaves; there were 44 house slaves and 130 slaves working on Clevia. p 111, but she makes no mention of any of the other properties, owned by Samson. It seems logical to me that there were other slaves, as one does not have yields from a plantation (and she had those other 2) without workers. It also seems logical to me that since her purchase offer to buy out Cruetz's brothers did not include any slaves, that we are still speaking of her property. I changed it to say "the 44 house slaves" ✅ SusunW (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "until writer and historian Cynthia McLeod decided to research her life" It would be interesting to be told when this was.
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "faithful restoration of the home as it appeared in Samson's lifetime" Is not one of "faithful restoration" and "as it appeared in Samson's lifetime" redundant? Perhaps 'faithful restoration of the home to how appeared in Samson's lifetime'?
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Initial comments. This one looks not too far off FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for the review. I really, really appreciate the improvements our collaboration makes. Let me know if I need to do anything else to improve it, as I am unsure about the note on her slave ownership. SusunW (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * One fiddly query above and we are done. Do think about taking this one to FAC. I would be happy to work the prose and MoS up to standard - with your collaboration of course. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think it would make it, I'd love to. I only wish we had an image of her, but alas... SusunW (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Well I am promoting. Let me know when you have more or less stopped adding stuff and I will relook at it with my FA hat on. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , I've more or less stopped adding stuff. In fact, I am on my way to harvest some fruit from the back yard, so will probably not be back on for the day. Thank you so much for your help and your offer to prepare it for FA. Will check back mañana. SusunW (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)