- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Dorothy Thomas (entrepreneur)
- ... that former slave, Dorothy Thomas, purchased her own manumission, but later employed slaves as hucksters? Source: p. 105: "Foden clarified that the bill of sale for the purchase of Dorothy Kirwan had been made in his name, but it was she who had paid him the money." and p 114: "She paid taxes on 16 slaves…Dorothy Thomas had by huckstering and hiring out negroes, accumulated an immense fortune."
- ALT1:... that former slave, Dorothy Thomas, probably convinced Colonial Secretary, Lord Bathurst to repeal a head tax that applied only to free women of colour? Source: former slave see manumission notes above. p. 104: "probably apocryphal...Lord Bathurst was so impressed by Dorothy Thomas that he had the noxious law repealed. The most reliable evidence comes from the Demerara Gazette, which reported her triumphant return." and p 241: "my humble exertions in obtaining the repeal of the Tax of Ten Guilders, levied annually on Free Women of Colour…"
Improved to Good Article status by SusunW (talk) and Ipigott (talk). Nominated by SusunW (talk) at 00:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
- Cited:
 - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
- Interesting:
|
Overall:
This is for both hooks; although the original hook is more supported due to the "probably apocryphal" nature of ALT1, ALT1 seems okay given the rest of page 104 (I unfortunately cannot see page 105, but I'll accept it on good faith). –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs) 21:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
This is for both hooks; although the original hook is more supported due to the "probably apocryphal" nature of ALT1, ALT1 seems okay given the rest of page 104 (I unfortunately cannot see page 105, but I'll accept it on good faith). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)