Talk:Thomas Day (cabinetmaker)

Image Caption
Great image. For the caption, you should follow standard museum format. Since it is his page, you don't need his name, just the title of the piece: [title:chest], [date], [medium: type of wood, paint, etc] [collection] Ls1080 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Photograph discussion
Any help on cleanup, additional info or pictures is appreciated. This is my first try at an article. Cdtew (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you interested in pictures of furniture attributed to Day (but unsigned)? I attend/work at UNC-Chapel Hill, and there is some furniture here that is known/believed/accepted to be his. Would photographs of a piece (or two, if I can get them) enhance this article? Czarinanc (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! If there are any pieces attributed to him (for instance, as a former Phi, I know of some in the Di/Phi chambers in New East/West), I think they would need a third-party source (an exhibition catalog or such) giving a scholar's professional opinion that they're his, so that we can use that as a ref in the article for verifiability purposes.  Otherwise, I think they'd have to be signed.  Thanks for the help.   Cdtew  (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the Di/Phi furniture, actually. There's another piece in another gallery on campus, but it's assumed to be a showroom sample, and seems like it would be much harder to attribute or find a supporting third-party source for. There may be images of the Di/Phi pieces in a recent exhibition catalog from 2-3 years ago; I can check if you think it's worthwhile. Also, as a former Phi, do you think would the Di/Phis would be open to someone photographing their furniture? Czarinanc (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Di/Phi organization on campus has the authority to give permission to take photos, as, if I recall correctly, the furniture is owned by the Dialectic and Philanthropic Societies Foundation, the nonprofit that also owns the portrait collection. I will look in some materials I have to see if they attribute the furniture to day; all I can recall, from my discussions with John Sanders, is that there is substantial evidence attributing the furniture to day, and that at some time around the time the societies acquired the furniture, a bill of sale was generated by Day's firm which may have described some of it.  Don't know where any of that documentation is (I'd assume the UNC Manuscripts Dept, where I also worked, or the NC Archives in Raleigh), or if I'm even remembering correctly.  Thanks for looking into this.  I would, but I live in the backcountry and don't get to Chapel Hill often.   Cdtew  (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, I hadn't thought about the Foundation. I'll look into that. I've found a reference book that attributes three pieces of Di/Phi furniture to Day, with photos - I only had time to skim at work, but it sounds as though he got the commission in... I want to say 1848? Czarinanc (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great! Out of curiosity, when you get the chance, could you tell me which work it is? Also, Do you have regular access to the chambers? I'd love to know which pieces were confirmed.  Cdtew  (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure - I'm using "Thomas Day: Master craftsman and free man of color" by Patricia Marshall, published by UNC Press, 2010. I left the book in the gallery where I work, but I want to say the podium, a desk, and... something else were pictured. I don't know that you could say I have regular access to the chambers, but I work on campus two days a week and live in town, so if the Di/Phis and the Foundation are amenable to picture-taking, it's easy enough for me to get over there. Czarinanc (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I read your user page, and saw you work at the NCC. I worked at the Southern between 2003 and 2007. I don't know if the MSS Dept. still exists, but if you ever run into Laura or Matt, tell them Clark says hello!  Cdtew  (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing Plan -LTyndall
Literature Review - Annotated Bibliography

Barfield, Rodney D. “Thomas and John Day and the Journey to North Carolina.” The North 		Carolina Historical Review 78, no. 1 (January 2001): 32-66, accessed 16 February 		2017, http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? sid=3c51c475-279c-42fc-889c-3a2664cf28be%40sessionmgr101&vid=5&hid=115.

Barfield’s article, published in an academic journal, focuses on Thomas Day’s early life and family life. Barfield explores Day’s birth and upbringing by free parents in Virginia and delves into Day’s history, interest, and education in furniture making, which appears to stem from his father’s occupation as a cabinet maker. This part of the article will help fill the biographical content gaps in the Education & Early Life section as well as will cover the identified content gap of Day’s journey into the furniture business. The article will also provide context for the social atmosphere of Day’s time as well as an interesting perspective on why Day, of the numerous free black men in the South, has been so well remembered, researched, and exhibited, which will be a good addition to the Legacy section as well as fill the identified social context content gap.

Bass, Debra D. “Famed Black Craftsman’s Work on Display - Thomas Day Established Himself 		as a Respected Businessman Despite his Race,” News & Record (Greensboro, NC), 		February 19, 2000, accessed 16 February 2017, http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/		doc/nb/news/0EAF88A92527151C?p=AWNB.

This article provides information on the contemporary side of Thomas Day’s work and legacy. It provides helpful information on modern exhibitions of Day’s work as well as information on current efforts to preserve his work, workshop, and memory. I plan to use this information regarding the restoration of his workshop and craftsmanship in my proposed Legacy section of the article, because it speaks to Day’s influence on his community both during his life and after. Furthermore, this article also provides some information on Day’s workshop during his lifetime, which will be a helpful resource for the Day’s Furniture Business section of the article.

Becker, Denise. “Festival to Honor Black Builder Organizers Hope the Recognition of Thomas 		Day, a Black Furniture Maker, Will Become an Annual Event,” News & Record 			(Greensboro, NC), July 16, 2001, accessed 16 February 2017, http://				infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/0ED4EBA84EDDEBAD?p=AWNB.

Similar to the Bass article on Day, this article provides good information on Thomas Day’s legacy, both as a furniture maker and as a prominent and respected community leader, by discussing the NC Furnishing Festival and its focus on Thomas Day’s work and community influence. This information will add to the Legacy section. The article also touches on business aspects of Day’s workshop, giving worker numbers as well as capital statistics, which will be helpful to cover the technical/business content gap identified within the Day’s Furniture Business section. Furthermore, the article provides some information on Day’s craftsmanship, including the materials he worked with; this information will help in the Day’s Technique & Artistry section.

“Black Man Made Priceless Furniture,” Baltimore Afro-American, July 20th, 1929, accessed 16 		February 2017, http://search.proquest.com/docview/530763690?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/		sid:summon&accountid=11091.

This article, printed in an African-American centric newspaper in 1929, provides a contemporary and historic perspective on the perception of Thomas Day as a craftsman and NC community member. The article provides a base of information on Day’s materials and furniture creations at his workshop as well as his community influence and the respect and affluence he gained. It also talks about Day’s clientele, including a senator from NC who furnished his Washington, D.C. home with Day’s furniture. This article will be a good addition to the Day’s Furniture Business, Day’s Technique & Artistry, and Legacy sections.

Castenell, Wendy. “Review, Thomas Day: Master Craftsman and Free Man of Color.” Journal of 	the Society of Architectural Historians 70, no. 2 (June 2011): 260-261, accessed 16 		February 2017, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jsah.2011.70.2.260? seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

This source is an academic review of the book Thomas Day: Master Craftsman and Free Man of Color by Patricia Phillips Marshall and Jo Ramsey Leimenstoll. This short review concisely demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of this book, which is already referenced in the existing wikipedia article but which I believe can be more efficiently and effectively utilized to provide and support more information and analysis about Day’s life, business, and craftsmanship. The review describes what sort of information can be found in the book, such as Day’s family life and his work materials and style, which will make using the book as a source much easier. In listing what the book does not provide, this review also sheds light on what information I need to find other sources for, such as Day’s comparisons with other furniture makers and other free blacks. Although this source may not be useful for direct reference in the article, it is an excellent guide for using the Thomas Day book source.

Kuebler-Wolf, Elizabeth. “Review, Thomas Day: Master Craftsman and Free Man of Color.” The 	Journal of Southern History 78, no. 1 (February 2012): 169-170, accessed 16 February 		2017, http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0f0a0568-23bf-4071-		adc0-090675093ff3%40sessionmgr4007&vid=8&hid=4214.

Like the above source, this is an academic review of Thomas Day: Master Crafstman and Free Man of Color, a source I plan on utilizing effectively in my article. This review of course demonstrates the strengths of Thomas Day, including its copious use of primary source documents and its excellent illustrations, which will be useful in the Day’s Technique & Artistry section as I describe in detail Day’s materials and the designs and artistry of his various pieces of furniture. In this way, this review is helpful as a guide for using the Thomas Day source so that I can easily pinpoint the information, illustrations, and types of sources I will be looking at. Furthermore, the review also highlights some weaknesses in Thomas Day, including the fact that the authors credit many furniture pieces to Day that were probably done by his apprentices, which will be good knowledge going into using this source as I write the part of the article regarding Day’s use of slaves and apprentices, as well as his evolving style.

Marshall, Patricia Phillips. “The Legendary Thomas Day: Debunking the Popular Mythology of 		an African American Craftsman.” The North Carolina Historical Review 78, no. 1 		(January 2001): 32-66, accessed 16 February 2017, http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/		pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0f0a0568-23bf-4071-							adc0-090675093ff3%40sessionmgr4007&vid=4&hid=4214.

This article, written by one of the authors of the Thomas Day: Master Craftsman and Free Man of Color source already referenced in the article, will be an excellent biographical and artistic source for the article. From it I will use information regarding Day’s early life and family, such as his birth, parents, marriage, and children - an area in which the article is weak - as well as stylistic facts about Day’s craftsmanship. This source will also provide information for the Legacy section as well as the Day’s Furniture Business and Day’s Technique & Artistry sections in speaking on Day’s community presence, his workshop and business, and his furniture creations. I may also be able to find other sources listed in this article to use or reference for the article, such as The Free Negro in North Carolina 1790-1860 by John Hope Franklin, which could provide good background information on Day’s social status as a free black man.

McDonald, Glenn. “The Extraordinary Thomas Day,” News and Observer, The (Raleigh, NC), 		May 16, 2010, accessed 16 February 2017, http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/		nb/news/12FC699AF239B638?p=AWNB.

This article from a North Carolina newspaper will be an excellent source for the Legacy section of my wikipedia article. It gives descriptions of Thomas Day’s statue in front of the North Carolina Museum of History, as well as delves into the museum’s exhibit on Day. The article identifies what aspects of Day’s life and craftsmanship the exhibit covered, quoting its curator Patricia Phillips Marshall, author of Thomas Day: Master Craftsman and Free Man of Color. This article gives significant information on the exhibit itself as well as information on Day’s lifetime and business, such as his technological advances and his clientele. Not only is this source an excellent insight into the museum exhibit on Day, it is also a relevant perspective on and guide to Marshall’s book, and the research that went into the book and the exhibit - all of which will be useful not only in writing the sections of the article on Day’s historical legacy but also in utilizing Marshall’s book as yet another source.

Prown, Jonathan. “The Furniture of Thomas Day: A Reevaluation.” Winterthur Portfolio 33, no. 4 Race and Ethnicity in American Material Life (Winter 1998): 215-229, accessed 16 		February 2017, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1215182?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

This article from an academic journal focuses on Day’s technical artistry and craftsmanship as it revisits his furniture-making techniques and thus will be a great resource for the Day’s Technique & Artistry section. Not only does Prown investigate Day’s work itself, he also illustrates the deep connections Day had (and has) with the African American community as well as the current trend to recognize and legitimize the work of African-American craftsmen that history has largely ignored. Prown also provides information on previous academic research and exhibits on Day that will be excellent contributions to the Legacy Section. The article’s investigation of Day’s furniture craftsmanship as well as his famed millwork will aid greatly in describing his pieces and techniques in the article, while its look at Day’s social context will provide the article with an in-depth background and exploration of just how remarkable Day was.

Robinson, W.A. “Thomas Day and His Family,” Negro History Bulletin, March 1950, accessed 		16 February 2017, http://search.proquest.com/openview/						33251b7aff0985fdc44efddb4d351cff/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1816372.

This article from an African-American newspaper in 1950 examines Day’s life and work from an interesting perspective: not only is it from within Day’s community, albeit more contemporary, it also comes from a time of serious racial and social upheaval in America. It will be an interesting addition to the Legacy section as well as to the social context aspects of my wikipedia article by giving insight into how the African-American community remembers Day and his work, especially within the context of the burgeoning Civil Rights Movement. Furthermore, the article comments on Day’s birth and his ascension into the furniture industry, as well as his well-to-do clientele, which will be integral to the Day’s Technique & Artistry section as well as the Day’s Furniture Business section. The article’s information on biographical aspects of Day’s life, as well as its commentary on Day’s material and artistry will be an excellent addition to the wikipedia article.

Rogers, Patricia Dane. “Carved in History: A Success in an Unlikely Time and Place,” The 		Washington Post, February 13, 1997, accessed 16 February 2017, http://				search.proquest.com/docview/1455127510?accountid=11091.

In her article on Thomas Day, Patricia Dane Rogers investigates many aspects of Day’s life and works in light of his recent recognition by the general public for his social and business success. Rogers gives insightful information on Day’s techniques and design styles, mentioning multiple artistic movements/styles Day was linked to. Rogers also describes the many types of craftsmanship and furniture Day produced, and for whom - he was widely known for his beds and armoires but also made a multitude of other pieces. This information will be well-utilized in the Day’s Technique and Artistry section. Rogers also touches on Day’s social status and his significance as a free black entrepreneur in the Antebellum South - an aspect which will be useful in the Legacy section but also in filling the identified content gap of social context for the reader.

Seymour, Liz. “Supple Curves from a Master’s Hand: The Furniture of Thomas Day,” New York 	Times, February 25, 1999, accessed 16 February 2017, http://search.proquest.com/		docview/110121105?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=11091.

This article features information on a variety of aspects that I am going to address in my wikipedia article, including Day’s early life and family life, his artistry and business, and the modern restoration of his workshop as well as the exhibits on and resurgence of interest in his work. The information gleaned from this article regarding Day’s birth, marriage, family, and death - difficult to find in my census document research - will be used in my Education & Early Life section. The article’s commentary on Day’s artistic techniques, such as his tendency to utilize certain designs or materials, will be useful in the Day’s Technique & Artistry section, while Seymour’s information on Day’s workshop, including his workers and clientele, will bolster the Day’s Furniture Business section. Lastly, Seymour’s final section on the modern restoration of Day’s workshop and the Milton community efforts to recognize Day and his influence on the Milton and African-American community provides helpful information for the Legacy section.

Silva, Emily. “Program to Probe Craftsman’s Life: Thomas Day was Caswell County Native,” 		McClatchy - Tribune Business News (Washington), June 23, 2009, accessed 16 February 		2017, http://search.proquest.com/docview/458068510?pq-						origsite=summon&accountid=11091.

Though this short article mostly gives logistical details on an event held in Day’s honor in North Carolina, it still provides excellent insight into Day’s life, work, and especially his community influence. Silva reports on an academic/research symposium that was held to recognize the success of and bring attention to the story of Day; this highlights how important Day was (and is) to the African-American community, to the Milton community where Day had his workshop, and to the area’s history. This information will be an excellent addition to the Legacy section of the article. The article gives interesting understanding to how Day is researched and appreciated by the modern academic and public communities.

Rough Outline/Editing Plan

Content Gaps Content gap 1: Education - there is basically no information provided in the current article detailing any part of Thomas Day’s education, be it academic or trade-wise. This should be further researched and added in to strengthen the article and demonstrate Day’s skill and intellect as a furniture maker, as well as reference the status of educational possibility for free black people (men) in NC at this time. Did he receive a formal school education at all? Did he receive any private/informal tutoring? Did he attend any trade schools or receive lessons in carpentry or furniture, or have any kind of apprenticeship? If so, where, and with whom? What inspired him to go into the furniture-making business?

Content gap 2: Business Foundation - how did Day, a black albeit free man in the South during slavery (the business was founded ca. 1830-another gap within this gap, the timeframe is unclear/ambiguous), manage to open a profitable and successful business? Did he have contacts in the business (perhaps from any education or apprenticeships)? Did he have to obtain any permits to have the business in general, and further permits to own and run a business as a black man? What were the physical aspects of his business - i.e. did he have his own storefront location, how big was it, what was his inventory like at different periods in his career, etc.? The article states that he owned the real estate where his business was located, but gives no detailed information about the location, building, etc. - perhaps more information can be gleaned from the cited source, a book published by the UNC press. The Caswell Country register of historic places (in citation #5, source to be fixed, listed third on issues with citations in question 1) has a small description of the place of business that could be added to the article to give the reader a tangible image of Day’s business. *in the “Legacy” section, Day’s place of business in Union Tavern is given 		clearer detail through description of the building’s history and its current status 	as a museum and its place on the National Register of Historic Places - this 		information is useful to have in the article, but perhaps would be more helpful 		to the reader in a different section of the article.

Content gap 3: means of business - how did Day run his furniture business? Did he do all the work by hand, or did he have any type of machinery for specific facets of production, such as curving the wood pieces, cutting pieces, etc.? The article states that he used steam power to “drive much of his furniture-making implements,” which a)needs grammatical editing and b)is vague and ambiguous on how the steam power was created and utilized, and for which “implements” or tools it was used for. Did this steam power increase his profits by much? How did it affect his laborers (i.e. did it reduce the number of workers needed?)? Was steam power usage common in the furniture business, in this region? This information would provide the reader with further background knowledge of Day’s practical business aspects and is important because much of Day’s notoriety comes from this business and its products. Furthermore, numbers aspects of the business could also provide more vivid and accurate detail of Day’s life and success for the reader, such as production numbers, prices, profits, and statistical effects of the 1857 economic downturn listed at the end of the “Professional Life” section. Another potential addition under this content gap could be his clientele - to whom did he sell his furniture? Were his customers commonly upper-class, educated? The article lists that he made pieces for the state and for UNC, but this information is unspecific and lacks a citation.

Content gap 4: family life - Day was a free black man in the South well before the abolition of slavery, yet the article has little in the way of information explaining or documenting this fact. His parents were free, but how? Were they also born free, or did they purchase their freedom, and if so, from whom/where? What kind of life did they/were they able to lead as a free black family? Did they have a house, jobs? How were they treated in society, and why did they move from Virginia to North Carolina, as listed in the article? And what about Day’s family life as an adult? Who exactly was his wife, Aquilla Wilson? Was she black, “mulatto,” etc. and did this cause any problems in the legality/legal aspects of the marriage? How many children did they have, exactly, and when (the article states that they “had three or four children” which is vague and unhelpful to the reader as it does not provide definite information)? Furthermore, at the end of the “Professional Life” section, the article simply states that Day died in 1861, but it would make the article stronger to add information on exactly when and how Day died, along with where/to whom his business went, where he is buried, and if there are any types of plaques or monuments dedicated to him in order to provide the reader with a sense of his importance and of the state of the end of his life. *in the “Legacy” section, the article states that there is, in fact, a statue of 		Day at the North Carolina Museum of History. However this piece of information 	could be strengthened by describing the statue and an accompanying 			informational plaques, as well as the date of its creation and unveiling.

Content gap 5: inventory/artistic descriptions - the section on Day’s actual furniture making work is weak, both source/citation-wise and information-wise. This section utilizes embellished phrases to paint over the lack of specificity in describing Day’s work and its common aspects. The pieces are “unique” and “his parlor designs [were] the pinnacle of his projects” but why, and in what way? What exact aspects of his pieces make them unique (i.e. is there a technique or design that only Day was known to use?) This section needs to be lengthened and fleshed out to list specific pieces of furniture as well as their individual descriptions, as well as a more clearly laid out description of Day’s signature features, the classification of his furniture (types of pieces like chair, mirror, bureau, etc. as well as potential artistic movement/design classification - what is millwork, what traits are common to it, what was its use?). Since the main notoriety of Day comes from his furniture work, this section is incredibly important in educating the reader by providing accurate and detailed information on what his furniture looked like and what exactly made it so special. What kind of wood or other materials did he use, and where did he get them from? The information in this section flips from vague, confusing, and unclear to almost too-specific details on Day’s furniture in general - the article does not explain Day’s techniques in proper, understandable layman terms and thus the reader is easily lost in complicated jargon, rendering even the few specific descriptions provided useless and confusing to the reader. Furthermore, the article mentions a few times that only one piece of furniture can be definitively attributed to Day, based on an improperly cited source, yet the article cites multiple sources, including a museum which housed an exhibit on Day, that would suggest that there exists somewhere a clear collection of Day’s work - more research here into the available sources may provide more specific pieces of Day’s furniture that are clearly attributed to him and that could add more detail and specificity to the article. Another example of the ambiguity is in this sentence: “Day's furniture is high quality, antebellum, North Carolinian native furniture.” What does it mean to be antebellum, to be North Carolinian? More detailed description is needed here to provide substantial information on Day’s furniture artistry and technique.

Content gap 6: Day today/restoration - what was the process, in recent history, of declaring Day’s workshop a historic location? How was it then made into a museum, and what are the details of the museum (i.e. how and by whom is it run, and what types of exhibits does it house?)? This information is somewhat provided in the “Legacy” section of the article but could be strengthened by adding more specific information, such as on the organization that runs the museum, how they were founded, etc.

General Edits -embellishments/further explanation of the social mores and situations of Day’s 			time may provide a better framework of understanding for his business 				practices as well as his supposed success/fame for the reader (i.e. in saying 			that he employed black slaves and white apprentices, explain why he did this, 			what effect it may have had on him, his business, his profits, etc.). Another 			example of where this might be useful is in the following sentence: “This was 			highly unusual for a free person of color in the era before the American Civil War.” - especially for non-American readers, this sentence may 			not provide enough explanation of the social environment surrounding this time 			period, i.e. that most black people weren’t even free, let alone able to 				purchase land. *in the “Legacy” section, an attempt at this is made, but this part could 				be strengthened further by providing more concrete detail instead of 				vague explanations of the social and racial constraints Day faced. -Day’s places of business and residence should (and can!) be more clearly 				described utilizing sources already cited, but not well-used, in the article; 				however the phrase stating that these buildings are “significant points of local 			and state history” should be rewritten, developed to give more accurate detail. How are they significant? Are they open to the public? Frequently visited? Part 			of a museum? Did anything else of historical importance happen there to make 			them significant in other ways? -a few places in the article need grammatical editing, mostly related to 				subject-verb agreement, as well as some better word choice and explanations 			to provide a clearer image of what is being said. Many phrases, such as “In 			contrast to carpentry and milling of its time (which were mostly produced as 			separate entities)” are ambiguous and unclear in their meaning - how can 				carpentry and milling, types of trade practices, be produced? A clearer sense 			needs to be provided here. -there is potential for improving the article by rearranging the information in 			clearer and cleaner sections. For example there are two different sections 				detailing Day’s work, but no clear reason can be seen as to why they are 				separated. Furthermore, information that appeared missing in earlier sections, 			such as where Day’s business was located, is found in the very last section of 			the article, suggesting that this information would be more useful if placed 			earlier in the article. *potential sections/order: Overview, Education & Early Life (family, 				school, trade experience), Day’s Furniture Business (location, 					foundation of the business, physical/statistical business aspects like 				profits, machinery, employees, clientele), Day’s Technique & Artistry 				(materials, types of furniture made, characteristics and classifications), 				and Legacy (statues, museums, and public remembrance)

In finding sources for writing my wikipedia article, I have been able to more firmly decide what areas of the article I will be able to edit and strengthen, and which areas I may not be able to strengthen as I originally planned. I still plan to reorder the sections as detailed above and believe that my sources will support and strengthen the article within this reorganization. I also have found that my identified content gaps can be fairly effectively filled with the information gleaned from my found sources. The academic essays will contribute to Day’s personal, craft, and business history, while the contemporary and historical newspaper articles will speak to Day’s historical and modern legacy as a free black craftsman in the Antebellum South, including current/recent research, exhibits, and restorations as well as general community influence and community remembrance of Day. Many of the sources touch on Day’s social context and his relative success and fame in reference to his social status; these will fill the social context content gap well. Unfortunately, in my research I experienced difficulties in finding direct census documents to support my writing on Day’s biographical history (i.e. his parentage, birth, marriage, children, education, etc.), but fortunately many of the academic sources I found provide adequate biographical information that will fill this source void. In all I believe the sources I have found will enable me to successfully complete my previously proposed edits and to strengthen the information given about Day’s life and upbringing, his successful business, his craftsmanship, his influence on his community during and after his life, and the recognition and restoration of his legacy today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTyndall (talk • contribs) 20:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Lily,

You have a great start here! The "Education & Early Life" and "Day's Furniture Business" sections are well-written and highly informative. I look forward to seeing what you write for the "Day's Technique and Artistry" section. I would also encourage you to bolster the "Legacy" section more if possible. I found the discussion of Day's privilege and status in the Milton community to be incredibly interesting. One outstanding question--did his complexion have anything to do with this preferential treatment? I know that you mention that Day's great-grandmother was a white plantation mistress, so did Day appear "mulatto"? Have you seen this discussed in any of your sources? One final note--just keep in mind that each new point needs a citation. That means you should likely have a new citation every 2-3 sentences.

Overall, great work and I'm excited to see the "final product"!

Kellyskeen (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * NC Museum of History, Raleigh, NC - panoramio (4).jpg