Talk:Sully Historic Site

Improving article

Offhand, I recall listing "all" of the usable external sources. Someone who's inclined could certainly expand the abstraction of interesting information from those sources. However, they're pretty complete (recalling that Wikipedia is not a repository of information, I've made the article focus on tying together the sources). Tedickey 19:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal from AfD

Resolved

In the AfD for Francis Lightfoot Lee II, referenced above, it was proposed that said article be merged into this one. Some question was raised as to the proper article for merger. Please use this space to determine if this article is the appropriate target for that merger. When a location is determined, the proper procedure for performing the merge can be found at Help:Merge. It is important that the merger be noted with wikilinks in the edit summaries of the articles to ensure GFDL compliance. As an example, in the edit summary of this article, you might say "Material merged from Francis Lightfoot Lee II". When the material in Francis Lightfoot Lee II is merged, it must be turned into a redirect to the destination article and placed into Category:Redirects from merges by copying {{R from merge}} beneath the redirect link. If you have any questions about this or about the procedure, please let me know at my talk page or ask them at Wikipedia's help desk, generally manned around the clock by volunteers. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the content would fit better under the Marriages and Children section of Richard Henry Lee, except for the single sentence discussing change of ownership, which would fit here. Tedickey (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Michael White^T·C 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to determine the proper home for this material. The merger is complete. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Further Improvements

This is a work in progress. Content will be fleshed out and formatted properly and citations added over the next several days. I am having trouble getting the picture of the pen to place properly. May place it further down the article at a later timne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofkenny (talk • contribs) 13:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

From c class article to good article

A big part of good article status is the citations. Currently, the citations are a good bit of a mess. I would like fix that mess with shortened footnotes. Rather than having citations hidden in various places throughout the article, now the citations are all collected in references and only a tiny author, date, and page (if you need an exact page) are hidden in the article. Please chime in with your preference for the current or the proposed formatting. Abel (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

proposed I think having a tidy citation section is more critical for FA than GA, but my view is that the proposed formatting is a definite improvement.--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

proposed I prefer the proposed formatting. --LilHelpa (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

proposed Agreed with both - I like the proposed formatting. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

proposed Yes, the new formatting is very neat, and will make it easier to add page numbers later. I recommend User:Gadget850/HarvErrors.js when working with shortened footnotes. When looking at the proposed formatting, that script tells me that "Gamble 1993" isn't linking properly to the reference "Gamble (1973)" - which year is correct? - and that the reference "Prats, J. J. (March 31, 2006)" isn't used. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that! Looked at the old code and found that Langan b is supposed to be using the Prats citation. Once a consensus is reached, I'll go in and fix that mistake with {{sfnm | 1a1= Prats | 1y=2006|}}. Thank you for mentioning my blunder, I would have never noticed that I messed up on the copying and pasting. 1973 is definitely the correct year for Gamble. Also have to wait for consensus, but can then just replace Gamble|1y=1993 with Gamble|1y=1973. Thank you for so meticulously looking at the proposed change! Abel (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

proposed agree (an improvement) TEDickey (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

With more changes entering the history, meaning more changes would have to be recreated post style change, increasing the likelihood that I will make even more blunders, as well as all the comments here preferring the proposed over the current formatting, I am going to make the change to shortened footnotes and fix the to errors that John caught in addition to recreating the recent changes in the article history. Please let me know if I accidentally miss something. Abel (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Education of Francis Lightfoot Lee II

In taking a look at the shortened footnote change I happened to notice that there was a change in the section on Francis Lightfoot Lee II in terms of his education. One says Princeton and the other says Harvard.

So this earlier version cites page 17 of Gamble 1973 and has:

The beneficiary of a stellar education at Phillips Academy and the College of New Jersey (now Princeton), as well as a scion of one of the most prominent families...

And so the current version as of this talk page edit cites page 146 of Alexander 1912 and has:

Francis Lightfoot Lee II attended Harvard University and graduated with an bachelor of arts degree[23] in 1802, then completed an master of arts degree[24] in 1806...

Is that because there is a discrepancy in the sources? Or maybe he was at both institutions for a period of time?

I noticed that because I wasn't sure what artium baccalaureus and artium magister meant when looking at the notes section. Seems like at Harvard A.B. is used instead of B.A. (and similarly A.M. instead of M.A.):

Bachelor of Arts#United States

http://www.harvard.edu/on-campus/commencement/degree-abbreviations

Yes, for some reason Harvard insists on using the Latin names and so they have the initials "backwards" from what everyone else uses. It seems like a lot of the article, in the past, plagiarized Gamble and I am working to change that. Abel (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you are onto something. I may have gotten Francis Lightfoot Lee II and Francis Lightfoot Lee I mixed up. Abel (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Put both back as Gamble p55 definitely has Phillips Academy, but the only mention of College of New Jersey that I can see is about F.L.'s older brother Cassius attending and not F.L. himself. Abel (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Just found "Cornelia's first cousin, Francis Lightfoot Lee II, an M.A. of Harvard College and a lawyer in Alexandria." So now it is starting to look like Phillips Academy and Harvard are accurate, but College of New Jersey (Princeton) is not.

References

Wow this is complicated. So Harvard A. B. and A. M. is correct, but you can only see it in a scan of the original book not the modern reprints. So now the citation is ridiculously complex but it has a ref supporting the family calling Francis Lightfoot Lee II F. L., the Gamble claim of Phillips Academy, and the multiple claims that support the Harvard degrees (so I did not mix up the two Francis Lightfoots and the College of New Jersey (Princeton) in Gamble really was about Cassius and not F. L. Abel (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A big thank you to @Jjjjjjjjjj: for pointing out how these details needed attention.

The only source I can access readily is Alexander 1912, but as far as I could tell it makes sense and it consistent. So it was his brother Cassius who went to College of New Jersey (Princeton), while Francis Lightfoot Lee II attended Philips Academy and Harvard. Glad that that was helpful. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sully Historic Site/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Will review this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Id4abel: Found time for some reviewing. I have added all my comments: Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• We generally exclude citations from the lead. They go to the main text, and all facts of the lead should be mentioned in the main text
  • ..."there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."Abel (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I understand this, and that is why I leave it to you to decide what for to include citations in the lead. I had a similar discussion on Pink slime, where we retained citations because the claims could be controversial. But the claims in this article's lead do not, in my opinion, require citations. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
      • If you prefer to have the citations as they are, may I know why? I like to have things sorted out in reviews, and interaction helps us all learn. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Sure. While you and I may not consider the text controversial, there is certainly someone who does. Having citations reduces conflict for all the reasons that citations are used, making "not needed" a hasty assumption. Abel (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Add a word about who William Swartwort was
  • No one seems to know or care about about who William Swartwort was.Abel (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Sully" is repeated. You can use variation by saying "the place".
  • "The place" is unclear, Sully is very clear.Abel (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• with a focus on the Lee family What does it mean?
  • It means the Park Authority ignores the other owners.Abel (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Added "an exclusive," which is redundant. Abel (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Pre-Lee period

• Nothing is recorded about the disposition of this land Can you be that sure? Perhaps say "Little is recorded"?
  • That would conflict with the source, but if that is what you prefer...Abel (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    • The final choice is of course the nominator's. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Given that the reviewer has the power to fail the review, the final choice seems to be the reviewer's. Abel (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
        • I respect the nominator's preference, because they know their work better. I am not bent upon any point, I will not force you to change it if you feel it is improper. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
          • That is a very reasonable approach. The odd part is that every issue raised has been addressed, yet the review has not passed.Abel (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
            • I am sorry, I did not find time to check the article. I thought you had not yet decided what to do with this part. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard Bland Lee

• reduced the soil depletion characteristic of tobacco production Perhaps say "reduced the soil depletion caused by tobacco production"?
  • changed to "inherent to"Abel (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Do wheat, corn, peach, apple, dairy and estate need links? They are fairly common terms.
  • Then why have those articles at all?Abel (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not challenging their significance. I recommend removing links to common terms, that is all. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Francis Lightfoot Lee II

• The article deviates from its main focus in the first para of this section. It is all about the person. I would recommend deleting it and if you have to introduce family members, like his second wife Jane, do so as we keep talking about Sully.
  • removedAbel (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think we should call him F.L., that seems informal; rather say Francis.
  • There are not only many Francis Lees, there are many Francis Lightfoot Lees, who were all alive at the same time, hence his family calling him F.L.. Which also explains the note about the book that labels him Francis Lightfoot 5 when his name is Francis Lightfoot Lee II.Abel (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Which gained Jane a reputation for a "judicious system of husbandry." Not a complete sentence, merge with the previous line. Also, introduce Jane here if the first para is deleted.
  • doneAbel (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Then in 1816, due to complications during the birthing of their fifth child Frances Ann Lee, Jane Fitzgerald Lee died. Four years later in 1820, F. L. had either a nervous breakdown, or possibly a stroke. In either case, he became unable to care for himself and in 1825 was committed to the Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia Appears unnecessarily long.
  • now shorter Abel (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Which explains the park authority decision to have Sully "completely furnished with antiquities from the Federal period." Not a complete sentence, merge with the previous line.
  • doneAbel (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That should be all. Good luck! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I believe the article should be ready for promotion now. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)