User talk:Deisenbe/sandbox/Reuben Crandall

would you have a look at this? Thanks.

I'm drafting Slavery in the District of Columbia. deisenbe (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure,, I am in the middle of something right now, but I will take a look a bit later today.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

So far, it is looking pretty good and I am going ahead and making minor edits... and I put things in purple that look like they need to be removed before moved to article space. I am noticing that the quality of the article is really good... so many of my comments are for fine-tuning... in a nit-picky vein (vane? vain? - getting punchy)
 * Comments

A couple of comments:
 * I am unfamiliar with the New England Historical Society, but since it ask for content submissions, I wonder how good their editorial function is. It definitely appears better than a regular blog, but I am not sure if this would be considered a reliable source
 * Otherwise, your sources look reliable to me, but there are a lot of contemporaneous sources, without the benefit of input from historians, etc. If you are interested in making this a GA or DYK, I would suggest that you use some more modern books. See 21st century sources
 * I don't understand "Title to be Trial of Reuben Crandall, with redirect under the name". The article is written as a biography. I would think that the title would be "Reuben Crandall" and that a redirect titled "Trial of Reuben Crandall" would redirect to "Trial of Reuben Crandall#The trial".
 * I don't understand "on charges of possession of abolitionist publications, or in legal terms, "seditious libel and inciting slaves and free blacks to revolt" " -- could it be worded something like" on charges of possession of abolitionist publications, or in legal terms, seditious libel that could incite slave revolts? --- my thinking is that slave revolts often involved free blacks. Just a thought.
 * Something to think about: There are so many quotes in the intro that they lose their punch. I personally would paraphrase some and leave the two or so most meaningful phrases/sentences. Just a thought, again.
 * Should "He boarded with a Peekskill family, to whom he was also physician" have a word before "physician"?
 * I am confused by the "Context" section. It provides a lot of detail, when there are probably just a couple of sentence that are needed... and detail could be put in a note for people that *love* detail. I am going to take a stab... see what you think.
 * Wow! What a story!
 * I made a few more edits.
 * It is really nice that there aren't large blocks of quotes, but like the intro - there are still a lot of quotes that seem unnecessary... especially considering the goal of having a neutral, encyclopedic tone. See Encyclopedic style.
 * I hope the fact that there is a long list is not disheartening. You did a really good job and I leaned in a bit harder to smooth what are mostly minor issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time with this.


 * This is for your information only: I'm very proud of how reviewers said I write well. ¶¶ Why my writing has so many quotations: because articles are more beautiful and more accurate with quotes. They are like fresh cheese: fresh and new. By this I mean that through them we hear what nineteenth-century men and women actually said, in their own words. Think of a witness in a trial: someone without direct knowledge is never as accurate and useful than someone with direct knowledge. In some cases quotes have to be rewritten to make them more intelligible, but barring that the quotes are the real McCoy. The real thing. Genuine. For me or anyone else to put them in "our own words" is to diminish them. Rephrasing something, maybe it isn't making things worse, but for sure it isn't making them better. By definition. ¶¶ And what's great about this period is that it's all public domain, you can use any quotes you want. ¶¶ I hope you will see that I'm well qualified, and experienced to handle 150-year-old newspapers. You said "without the benefit of input from historians." I'm a historian. ¶¶ A little book I published in 1987 was the correspondence of two eighteenth-century English gentlemen. deisenbe (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)-->


 * This article is so much closer to an encyclopedia article. I am not too worried about it. I was just expressing my personal opinion.


 * I understand your background. I have from the very beginning. (And, I think I have said so a number of times.) It's actually why I have hoped that you would "get" the WP guidelines. I think mixing your talent and experience, with published sources, and WP guidelines could make for some pretty good and interesting articles. This one was very good. A bit of a gut-punch to realize what Crandall went through, but a very interesting article.


 * As long as you don't get into original research, attempt to use more modern sources, and don't try to write based upon your published sources, it should be good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I know I made extra work for you... and a number of my edits were changed... but when I look at the sum total result of both of our edits, I think the article is better. I hope you think so, too.


 * If you are preferring to find someone with a style closer to yours, you could check out the person that posted on your talk page who offered to help. Or, join one or more history WikiProjects. I am here, though, too... if you think that the end product is better by working together. Whatever you want. You have done a really great job on this article, maybe you don't want further help. Whatever works for you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I hope I did not offend you in any way. Your book looks interesting. I took a quick glance earlier, and will check it out more later.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You reported me for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". That's a black mark on my record and an open case. I'd appreciate it if you would post something there (the Administrator's Noticeboard) at the very least saying the incident is over and does not need other administrators' attention, if you feel that way. If you don't feel that way, then bring me up to date on it please. deisenbe (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure who you are quoting re: "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". But, I can see how it might look that way.


 * I posted a note to you on AN/I... thanking you. And, I posted a "Great job" message on your talk page... I also posted a message that I would be happy to work with you if you could forgive me... all three of which should have been HUGE indicators for the administrators. I have been expecting it to get archived... and surprised that it hasn't been. I am sorry that it hasn't been closed. I will go post a message.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , It was archived off here. I don't think at all that it left a black mark... it seems to me that most, if not all, of us here really appreciate it when someone works to address issues. (I have been on both sides of the fence.) I appreciate that you did it!!! What people will remember is your writing good articles. You create your own reputation by the quality of your work and your willingness to work with others. For me, you are left with a gold star by the way that you responded.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Added "not" in what is now: "I am not sure who you are quoting re: "chronic, intractable behavioral problems".–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry. I should have thought about putting a "please close message" on ANI... and done so days ago.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." From Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents I can't find what you say you posted just now. deisenbe (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Gotcha.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)