Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth Willing Powel/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 September 2020 [1].

Elizabeth Willing Powel edit

Nominator(s): GreenMeansGo and Coffeeandcrumbs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Willing Powel has been called a forgotten "Founding Mother" of the United States. An apt moniker for a woman perhaps forgotten by history but whose influence on early American History is evident in her communiques with the notables of her period, including many of the Founding Fathers of the United States who she entertained at her home at Powel House (now a museum in Philadelphia). She is most often remembered for a light exchange with Benjamin Franklin which became an often quoted statement about the Constitution of the United States. The story goes as such: a "lady" asked Franklin "What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?", to which he responded, "A republic ... if you can keep it". Who this "lady" was is often glossed over. This article attempts to answer that question with the best sources available today. Powel was a kingmaker and power broker of her time who counseled Supreme Court justices, presidents, senators, and mayors. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just noting that I'm more-or-less around and will attempt to help address any issues as best I can. GMGtalk 18:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eddie891 edit

Yup, I forgot :)

  • "Following her husband Samuel Powel's death in 1793, Powel went on to manage" I'd rephrase to "Following her husband Samuel Powel's death in 1793, Powel managed" or "After her husband Samuel Powel's death in 1793, Powel went on to manage", but that's no big deal either way
    •  Done
  • "was eventually twice elected as mayor in 1748 and 1754" I'd cut eventually here, I don't think it adds anything
  • "only two sons, both named Samuel, survived their birth, but died as infants" I'm confused what you're trying to say here. Did only two survive their birth and die as infants, and the other two didn't survive their birth at all? Was it something else?
    • Yes, you understood it. All of them died. Two at birth, and two as infants. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "known as Powel House" Is there evidence that it was known as such during their lifetime? In my (admittedly limited) experience most such houses get the name after the fact. Also, our article on the house seems to favor saying the Powel House
    • Since it was most definitely not known as Powel House when they purchased it, I changed to "later known as ...". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Here she hosted well-attended and high-profile parties" is there any more detail that can be added on the parties? If they were so prominent, I'd expect to hear a bit more about them. If the sources don't tell, that's fine
    • Just rereading sources and noting for future reference for myself. If we don't put something in about John Adams getting drunk and climbing the church steeple (Maxey, 21) then we're wrong. GMGtalk 22:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She encouraged political discourse and often opined on matters of state herself" at the parties, or just in general?
    • Yes? Her political connectedness, ongoing correspondence, and the hosting of salons kindof all feed into one another a bit. As covered elsewhere in the article, the realm of public speaking for public women was largely confined to these largely private events, but, also in the article, she still kept up extensive correspondence with those among the political elite explicitly discussing matters of government. GMGtalk 11:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "often opined on matters of state herself. Her sister, Anne Francis, wrote to her sibling Mary Byrd wrote of the" 1) there's a lot of hers here, maybe one or two could be eliminated/replaced 2) "wrote to [...] wrote of the" seems off
  • "contrary to American custom" I doubt a reader would immediately understand what the custom is without a bit of explanation...
    • I've attempted to clarify a bit. Maybe that will suffice. GMGtalk 17:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "personally commandeered their bed chambers" I don't think it immediately clear who 'they' is in this sentence
  • "more than 500 of Powel's letters had survive" I think this is off
  • "so that Elizabeth Hamilton later recalled," recalled here makes the sentence read oddly with what Eliza is quoted for, can you swap that word
  • ", commanding general of the Continental Army" I think a better link would be to George Washington in the American Revolution, also he wasn't commanding general but commander-in-chief.
  • "up until Washington's own death" could use a year, 1799 if I'm not mistaken.
  • "an epidemic of Yellow Fever in 1793," I would suggest "a Yellow Fever epidemic in 1793"
    • Instead of your suggestion, I brought the date to the beginning of the sentence. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where Samuel would contract and later die of the disease" date? also can you remove "would" in favor of a past tense phrasing
  • "Powel never remarried, and lived on as a widow for more than" well if she never remarried, of course she remained a widow, that's slightly redundant imo. I'd suggest "Powel never remarried, and lived for more than" or something like that
  • "and began building a new house on May 13, 1800." Did she assume ownership and begin building the house on May 13, 1800, because that's how the article currently reads.
  • "social event and a religious experience" Ideally this quote would be attributed
  • "the Philadelphia Society for the Preservation of Landmarks (PhilaLandmarks)" odd that our article on the group never uses "PhilaLandmarks" once. Is that a real abbreviation?
    • Yes, it is how the organization and secondary sources like this one abbreviate its name. Our article on the society is extremely out of date including the logo. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • you don't cite Beeman yet have him in the 'sources' section. Is there anything worth incorporating?

That's it for a first pass from me, most of my comments are rather subjective and I'm open to further discussion. Best wishes and a very nice article, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just dropping a ping for @Eddie891: to see if he feels we've done a satisfactory job with this bit. GMGtalk 12:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things: "French nobleman François-Jean de Chastellux recalled that, rather than her husband as the foremost political thinker of the family, "contrary to American custom, [Mrs. Powel] plays the leading role in the family." I think this would read better as "French nobleman François-Jean de Chastellux recalled that, "contrary to American custom," rather than her husband as the foremost political thinker of the family, "[Mrs. Powel] plays the leading role in the family"." No big deal either way, though. 2) are you going to mention John Adams climbing the steeple? Other than that the prose seems pretty good to me. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eddie891: I've added a bit about Adams' shenanigans. Thank you for reminding me that I was trying to remind myself. I...am struggling a bit to find a formulation of your formulation for Chastellux that isn't repetitive re "family". Maybe "foremost political thinker of the house", "of the home", in the home? GMGtalk 12:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like 'of the house' the best, personally. Happy to Support (mainly on prose) either way... I see there's a lot of talk below about comprehensiveness. As I don't have access to the sources, I'll leave that for others. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

  • In "References, a couple of p.'s should be pp.'s.
  • "(February 21, 1743 [O.S. February 10, 1742/43]" Why definitely 1743 in NS, but might have been 1742 in OS?
    • The slash is not an indication of uncertainty. In OS, the year begins on March 25. To avoid confusion, modern historians use a slash to write OS dates between January 1 and March 25. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Always something new to learn. (I kinda knew that, but have never seen in expressed in that way.)
  • "Powel is said to be the person". I am unhappy with "said to be". If McHenry said it was Powel, then that is at least as certain as Franklin's words, which you don't similarly query.
    • Added reportedly to Franklin's response as that is just as questionable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following her husband's death" 'in ...'?
  • "Elizabeth married Samuel Powel on August 7, 1769, at the time one of the richest merchants of Philadelphia." → 'Elizabeth married Samuel Powel, at the time one of the richest merchants of Philadelphia, on August 7, 1769.'
  • "but died as infants" → ' but they died as infants'.
  • "During the occupation of the city as part of the Philadelphia campaign, the family home was occupied by the British. Frederick Howard, 5th Earl of Carlisle, occupied the ballroom". "occupied" three times in 25 words is not ideal. Maybe replace the second with 'taken over'?
  • Note c: "more than 500 letters had survived". 1) I assume Powel's letters, but it may remove any doubt to say so. (I was initially genuinely unsure just what was meant.) 2) Why the use of the past tense? Do they no longer survive?
  • "or Eliza Powel" I am unsure what this is trying to communicate. Do you mean something like 'known familiarly to Washington as Eliza Powel'?
  • "close friend and confidant to General Washington". Why the mention of his military title?
    • To differentiate from Martha and indicate that she was his friend before he was president. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I see the point. But I think that it assumes a knowledge of the fine details of the period and its people which most (ie any non-US) readers won't possess.
  • "George and Elizabeth corresponded regularly" → 'Washington and Powel corresponded regularly'.
Fair enough.
  • "to step down at the end of his first term" Could we add 'as president' for non-American readers.
  • "During September 1787, in the final days of the Constitutional Convention". I know you have Wikilinked Constitutional Convention, but I incline towards liking FAs to be broadly intelligible without having to click through to other articles. Given the salience of the anecdote, which can only really be understood if one realises what a Constitutional Convention is, is there any chance of a brief in line explanation?
  • "According to Maxey and Anishanslin" → 'According to both of the historians Maxey and Anishanslin'.
  • "She never remarried" As she has not yet been mentioned in this section, I think that a name is called for.
  • "including Bushrod Washington" → 'including George's nephew, Bushrod Washington'.
  • "or whom she had purchased a gift of black satin robes" Delete "had".
    • She purchased the robes before Washington died. So I think this is correct. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "assumed ownership of her country estate Powelton, which she inherited with the death of her husband" What is the distinction between "assumed ownership" and "inherited"?
  • "and spent her final years in ... where she would live until her death" One of these is redundant.
  • "and John Hare expanded" → ' and which John Hare expanded'.
  • "and leased it to Samuel Badger" Delete "it".
  • "was later purchased by the Philadelphia Society for the Preservation of Landmarks (PhilaLandmarks) in 1931" Delete "later".
  • "As of 2017, a previously undiscovered cache of documents from Powel was found" "as of"? Surely they were found at a particular moment, which is not going to change. Suggest "As of" to 'In'. Assuming that this is supported by the source.
    • Done. Source only says "this winter", so best we can do is "In late 2016 or early 2017".--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Public life" section has a lot of quotations. What is the justification for this in the light of "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate" (MOS:QUOTE)?
    • I have paraphrased or remove a total of three quotations. Perhaps GreenMeansGo has more ideas on reducing quotations. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will look at this tomorrow morning. GMGtalk 22:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have paraphrased some and condensed some. Maybe this will suffice. GMGtalk 12:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On an editorial note, wonderful last paragraph. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading.

  • "The daughter and later wife of mayors of Philadelphia" Her father's role as a mayor is not mentioned in the main article.
  • Added that bit. Not sure where it went. But it seems fairly important that she was born already part of the local political elite. Charles did die more than a decade before Elizabeth was married. But maybe that's too much detail best left to the main article for Charles? GMGtalk 12:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm easy. If it is in the lead it needs to be in the article. Obviously there are two ways of resolving that. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Friendship with Washington": Are the sentences in chronological order? If so, was → became in the second; if not, move the first to second or last.
  • "after her husband's death. After the death of George Washington". Optional: Is there a way to avoid "after" twice in five words?
  • "and was also in the possession of" "was" suggests that it isn't any longer.
    • Rewrote the sentence. We can't absolutely be sure where the documents are now or will be in the near future. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes:

  • Any reason why the Maxey quote on education couldn't be paraphrased in Wikipedia's voice?
    • I have shortened this quote down to only a few words. It is...a bit difficult maybe to say something like "benefited from superior instruction" in WPs voice, since that's basically a historical judgement call on the part of Maxey. It is still technically possible that she was just a self-taught savant, however historically unlikely it may be that one of the wealthiest families in Philadelphia would have failed to educate their children. GMGtalk 12:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, if a little less obviously, the Anishanslin quote on women's roles.
    • Already done in a previous revision above. GMGtalk 12:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. Just my response re "General Washington" above to look at. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Would removing "General" aid non-US reader? I don't think so. However, it does add value for those familiar with the period's US history. Don't get me wrong, I hate honorifics. However, this is an earned rank and title. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that you remove it. How about something like 'Elizabeth was a close friend and confidant to George Washington, commanding general of the Continental Army and later the first president of the United States"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't bother me if that's more intuitive wording. My impression was that it served primarily to differentiate pre- and post-war Washington, since the section is grouped thematically, with each thematic section kindof having it's own chronology. So the general overall header goes until well after the revolution, but then we kindof "reset" and reorient ourselves a bit when we switch focuses to Washington and then Franklin. GMGtalk 16:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind. It's your article. You need to introduce Washington, which "later the first president of the United States" does to an extent. IMO a broader introduction would be better - but I don't insist. "General" is a nod towards this, but - IMO - it unreasonably assumes that a reader will understand the nuances you are trying to convey. So either remove it or - better - expand it: I certainly don't insist on my choice of words. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless anybody has any objections/suggestions, I'm fine with moving it to a description rather than an honorific. Honorifics are kindof a no-no anyway. GMGtalk 17:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I am always surprised how discussion solves all problems. I realize now I misundertood what Gog was saying. Apologies. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made the change. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about solving all problems, but at least it gives us a fighting chance. A nice little article you have here. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tagishsimon edit

For people of this era it's always worth doing a check for person + slave/slavery. For EWP, I find that her husband, at least, for a time, was a slave owner; and that she is said to have taken a journey from acceptance of, towards membership of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and hardline abolitionism - see e.g. David W. Maxey A Portrait of Elizabeth Willing Powel (1743-1830) pp.53-54.

My concern with respect to FA status is that the article may lack coverage of her political thinking and the positions she took on issues of the day, beyond a couple of sentences in the Public life section. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Noting the FA criteria "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and reading through Maxey, I note the following which all seem to be missing from the article; that's not to say all this stuff should be in the article, so much as that the context I get from Maxey seems lacking from this article.

    • I have fleshed out and added a bit on her views, only borrowing slightly from preexisting text. @Tagishsimon: Perhaps this is the type of direction you were suggesting. GMGtalk 13:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her engagement with John Dickinson and his ideas, contrasted with her advice to her sister that women should not engage in politics (pp.18-19)
Her alleged engagement with John Dickinson and the possibility Samuel Powel was a second choice
  • In relation to the above two, I have added a bit about Dickinson. Maybe that will suffice. Though I would note that Maxey still pretty much treats this as a tantalizing rumor, the colonial equivalent of celebrity gossip. He doesn't quite venture to say that Samuel was in fact her second choice, and it's not clear at this point that we have really any published details at all about her and Samuel's courtship, or for that matter, whether they were already speaking while rumors were swirling about Dickinson.
Her comments about women in politics are a bit "out of time" here. But there seems to be a general favor toward a stand alone section on her political views if feasible. Maybe that would be a good fit there. GMGtalk 12:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section on this now under way on the talk. I would prefer to avoid putting in a half-finished section before everything is written/repurposed as needed. Standby. GMGtalk 13:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The possibility she was under pressure to leave the family house, as the oldest unmarried sister, once her London educated brother had married & started filling the house with children
  • All we get of Samuel is "richest merchant" - no backstory on e.g. his european travel and his defection from the Society of Friends, let alone that his father died when he was 11 ^ his grandfather when he was ~20, such that he inherited a vast fortune early in his life.
  • The inference that EWP & Samuel were 'especially solicitous' to their servants, whether slave of free.
  • The grevious nature of the tragedy of the deaths of their childre, upon EWP in particular, and upon the couple's ambitions.
    • Added more about the death of her children and her subsequent depression. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The role of smallpox, inoculation and EWP's medical cousin
  • Could probably make something of the Marquis de Chastellux's assessment of EWP - her loquaciousness, her leading role in the family.

I'll pause; I'm only a third of the way through Maxey. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a bit more involved than tweaking wording. I've been travelling all weekend and I've been on conference calls all morning. Will look to re-read Maxey and move forward soon. GMGtalk 13:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I would note that I believe the commentary on the Marquis de Chastellux was shortened per above due to concerns about over-reliance on quotes. And while Samuel in his own right did live a very interesting life, and his article needs a great deal of improvement, he does have his own article, and I am wary of the possibility of letting that bleed entirely too much into the article on Elizabeth. Not saying we couldn't flesh that bit out a bit more, but there is a fairly small margin there. GMGtalk 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • GreenMeansGo, I agree about not making this too much about Samuel, but I also agree with Tagishsimon that we need more content about her views. I think we should add a new H3 section focused entirely on her views and political opinions. I have been a little busy as well but I plan to tackle this some time over the next weekend. Feel free to start without me and I will jump in as always. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will look to work on it more also in the coming week or so. Just noting for coords that nothing here is abandoned, it's just moving at the speed of "busy angsty adult". GMGtalk 15:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of the changes; sorry they drove you mad. The article is *so* much better in all sorts of places, and we know so much more about her. I think all my concerns, above, are well answered; I'll have a scout around and see if I can find anything else to draw to your attention. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor break 1 (Tagishsimon) edit

Legacy section. I have concerns.

  • If we accept the section as is, her legacy is a) the fabric of a house b) 500 letters and some papers found in a trunk c) what people wrote about her Franklyn question and d) what more people wrote about her Franklyn question
  • I think we're missing any discussion of the substance or importance of her Franklyn question ... surely the question itself and the meaning and implications of the question, are her main legacy/ies? If so, we lack any discussion of it. Why is the question important? Why do we remember it? Did it change anything? When has it been brought up since she asked it? What are the circumstances in which it is remembered? So, for instance, we might talk about why exactly Nancy used the phrase earlier this year. We might talk about the use Gorsuch made of the question. TBH, in this article the Franklyn question is not unlike 'The Object' on the cover of Led Zeppelin's Presence (album)#Packaging and artwork (and see that article's infobox for a photo) ... one is sure that it's very important, but one is not sure quite what it is nor why it is important.
    • I have added a bit about the use of the anecdote (mostly by McHenry) as a cudgel to attack Jeffersonians in the 18th and 19th century. Sourcing a NPOV analysis of its use in the 20th and 21st century is going to be difficult but I will see what I can do. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two paragraphs, on her slow dissolution from the Franklyn question story, are legacies only in the way they're exemplary of identifiable women being written out of history. Those two paragraphs might fly better under some sort of historiography of the Franklyn question section?
  • Is the house a legacy? Does it add any understanding of the subject of the article? I have doubts. For sure we should have this information somewhere on Wikipedia - probably in a dedicated Powel Houe article. Not convinced it should be here (but, I stress, YMMV). If it is a legacy, I would hope we could say more than the chronicle of purchasing woodwork and restoring the fabric. It might, for instance, provide a legacy in the form of one of the only examples (or accessible examples) of its type/period/class of architecture/interior design/domestic environment in Philly.
  • Can we say anything more about the 500 letters? Presumably they provide valuable insights into the issues of the day, useful to historians &c.
    • I hesistate to drift too far away from the subject at hand, Powel herself. The contents of her letters are evidenced in the Views section and elsewhere. I will however be on the look out for any sources that mention the letters' value to scholars. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we now add that a very contemporary aspect of her legacy is the realisation/recognition (vide Anishanslin's 'What we get wrong' article) that she's a poster-girl for the cultural practice of writing identifiable women out of history.
  • Finally - and I have not thought this through - it may be that you can address the above, within the article, but not within a Legacy section ... which is to say, I don't think you should feel that you are constrained to trying to fill a section called Legacy, if the good & useful things we have to say are better said under other headings.
  • hth. Know that I feel guilty raising these questions with you, but it's an arduous process if done right. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, thank you, I am quite enjoying this experience. I have completely restructured the article to allow space for more expansion and accommodate a comment below by Venicescapes who like you suggest bringing the whole Franklin/republic bit together, which I had initially resisted. Apologies to GreenMeansGo for the sudden change of heart and the BOLD move. You will note I have made the Franklin thing an H2 section. I am going to expand it to explain its context and significance to McHenry and modern political commentators. We may have to split off into A republic ... if you can keep it or A Republic, If You Can Keep It (which redirects to Franklin), while keeping the parts we like for Powel. But let's see how long this article ends up being. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph of Views, starting Like many during the Revolutionary War, the Powels suffered extensive destruction of property ... that first sentence is not a view & should be removed elsewhere or deleted. Her loss of property, and her lament for lost education, are found in the same paragraph in Maxey (p.25) (but not under a heading "views". The first sentence would sit better in the appropriate place in the first 5 paras of the Public Life section

Some more from Maxey. As before, it is for you to decide whether any of the following should be included in the article; I raise it for your consideration, not as a demand that any or all of it be added.

  • p.37 - her fear of being buried whilst still alive
  • p.41 (last para) - your article states in a couple of places "She adopted her sister Margaret Willing Hare's son, John Hare Powel". Maxey says, specifically, that there's no evidence she adopted him and p.42 that special legislation would have been required. (Maxey notes that "it has often been asserted she adopted, but...") Maxey is clear that she always referred to him as nephew, that the renaming legislation identified his father &c.
  • p.51-52 - her views on the British (which are a. hilarious and b. all too believable.)
  • p.52-53 - her servants becoming her companions. You touch on this in sentence 3 of 'slavery', but there's possobly more to say (and in Maxey, there's a reprise of this when he deals with Amy Roberts (p.57 onwards))
  • p.54 - her great concern to preserve the Powel name
  • p.55-56 - linked to that, perhaps more on her shepherding of John Hare Powel
p.55 - her fairly extreme anti-catholicism - again, linked to her wish for the name to continue - "the Man that I had selected to transmit the Name of the virtuous correct Protestant Powel to Posterity."
Combining the top two for the sake of organizing my thoughts. It's difficult to say what to do with her religion. Maxey is the only one who seems to mention it, other than what inferences we can make by being married and buried by Episcopalians. Then again, Maxey is the most comprehensive source, at least until the day Synder publishes her own book. But the only bits we currently have are fairly passing mention of her disposition toward suspicion (p. 55), her concerns in reference to John (55-56), and her apparent distaste for Deism (p. 29). (Even then, Maxey rightly points out that is is fairly strange for a zealous Anglican to really breathe any words of pro-Irish-anything.)
Maybe @Coffeeandcrumbs: has further thoughts. But I'm not sure we have enough at this point for even a level three header on religion.
My inclination (and this may also address the below point) is that we should make the later life section lvl2 again, with three lvl3 headers:

==Later life==
Samuel dies. She inherits and manages everything.

===Will===
Everything about her meticulousness, leaving out John and only alluding to her servants, not to spoil the slavery section.

===John===
Everything about John, including the sentence from para 2 and all of para 4, also including the feud over his Catholic paramour.

===Death===
Basically all of para 3.

GMGtalk 11:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GreenMeansGo, I don't think I like the above idea. I think we should handle religion in §Views under a section titled "Religion" or "Religion and education". If we begin with her Quaker background (see "Society of Friends" in Maxey p. 91), mentioning her mother Ann and her Quaker influence on Elizabeth's education (Anishanslin 2016 book starting on p. 171), and go into criticism of deism, hatred of Catholicism, and desire to propagate the Protestant Powel name, we have a good enough content for a separate section.
If you take care of adding more about her will in the Later life section, I will handle religion and John Hare. Be sure to mention her relatives fretting about the influence of her servants. We may have to split the Later life section into two pre- and post-1802 when she went into "self-imposed semiconfinement" (Maxey p. 51). Let's see how big the section gets before we consider organizational concerns. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section heading on her religious views and added her anti-Catholic sentiments. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • p.56 - the extreme length & detail in her will, perhaps linked with the reaction to her will being read (p.58) - the Griffitts (Samuel's family) being horrified to see his estate going to her nephew - "John Hare Powel and all his family are preparing to go to Europe in a month or two, to spend his money (as much as he can come at)."
  • p.63 - You might pick up Maxey's closing quotation on this page (e.g."Maxey sums up her life by quoting from a letter to her brother "the quote".)
    • I think we have too many quotes already. This one while nice is not very substantive. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, from Maxey, it would be possible to have a section on her portraits; there's plenty of information with respect to the symbolism employed; the yellow (invented or fictional (p.46)) dress; that it would have been produced for her consumption only (p.47); its provenance before it finally returned to the Powel House (p.51 onwards) and, perhaps, Maxey's view of the near-end-of-life portrait (p.63) --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is really coming on. stick at it :). In the last couple of sentences of the very first paragraph, "she ... hosted well-attended and high-profile parties, after the fashion of a French salon, which became a staple of political life in the city." and then she after the war "she emerged among the most prominent Philadelphian socialites, establishing a salon of the Republican Court of ...". Can these be conflated into a single thing ... she operated a salon before & after the war? I think the problem I see is her "emerging" after the war, when she had clearly been doing the same before the war. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone may correct me if I'm mistaken, but the answer I believe is "yes". The Constitutional Congresses were in Philly in '74 and '75. New York was occupied in '76, Philly in '77, forcing the Congress into exile in York (not "New York"...just "York" as in York, PA). Then the Constitutional Convention came back to Philly in '87, six some odd years before Samuel died. Then Washington DC "happened" in 90-91-ish. So there were kindof two periods of Philly ascendancy as far as the political elite of the time goes. Hopefully that makes sense. GMGtalk 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure if you're supporting or opposing the idea that something needs to change with these two sentences. Right now I suggest "she emerged" -> "she once again took her place among...". --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible additional ref for ref 110 ("a claim that was refuted in 1915 by Charles Henry Hart.") is https://archive.org/details/jstor-25588667?q=Elizabeth+Willing+Powel which in the top-right has Hart fulminating against the Copley attribution. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some more background on Samuel's purchase of the house, and the modifications the couple had made upon taking possession, should you want to flesh-out the start of section 4 - https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_oyHzOaIpGxoC/page/n191/mode/2up?q=Elizabeth+Willing+Powel ... I didn't realise that Samuel's grand tour lasted seven years. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor break 2 (Tagishsimon) edit

It's looking like very much of the above has been dealt with - thank you very much. This new list is anything I come across on another read; wording quibbles, mainly. Later I'll close down the above two sections by bringing down here anything remaining (e.g. the strong concern about 'adopted son' is, I think, still unaddressed).

Stay strong. Nearly there.

  • Lede Para 2. "It was first recorded by James McHenry," -> "The exchange was first recorded by James McHenry,"
  • Lede Para 2. (change 'or' to comma) "the role played by Powel all but removed in 20th-century versions or replaced with an anonymous "lady"," -> " the role played by Powel all but removed in 20th-century versions, replaced with an anonymous "lady","
  • Lede Para 3. "She had also inherited a country estate " makes it sound like this is an inheritence from left-field. It's presumably some of Samuel's (or the couple's) property, possibly part of Samuel's inheritence from his family; I forget. You could turn the whole sentence around, along the lines of "She built a home for her adopted son and heir, John Hare Powel on a country estate which formed part of her inheritance."
    • Did something similar while also starting to address your concerns about John Hare, which I will handle in the body soon. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede Para 4. I think this needs splitting into two paragraphs at "Christ Church. The Powel House" since the first part deals with her life, the second deals with stuff that happens much later.
  • Lede Para 4. "The Powel House was later renovated and reopened to the public as a museum." -> ""The Powel House was much later renovated and reopened to the public as a museum.
    • I think adding the date when the museum opened handles the above 2 comments. I would prefer to keep this to 3 paragraphs to avoid short paragraphs. Her legacy of property, papers, and portraits is in my view related enough to her death to treat in the same paragraph. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede. I don't get a sense in the lead of just how fabulously wealthy she was (or the couple were). I got the impression from my reading that they were, indeed, comparatively at the top end of the super-rich of the town. We mention in 'Marriage and children' that Samuel wasone of the richest...
  • Infobox - Parent(s): Add her mother (whether as a redlink or in black; we say later both were prominent).
  • Infobox - Relative(s): Promote Edward Shippen (great-grandfather) to the top of the list (e.g. somewhat more chronological). For extra pedant points, John Hare should be higher than Ann Willing since the connection clearly was stronger.
  • Early life and family Para 1. (refs after punctuation?) "(née Shippen[8][9])" -> (née Shippen)[8][9]
    • Done. Although, I will note, there is sometimes good reason to ignore that guideline, but that reason coincidentally does not apply here.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life and family Para 2. "and began to quickly fill the house" -> "and quickly began to fill the house"
  • Early life and family Para 2. "This all resulted" -> "This is likely to have resulted"
    • My reading of Maxey indicates that he is more certain that "is likely to have". I have no reason to doubt him since he has access to almost all her letters.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life and family Para 2. "Rumors at the time spoke of Elizabeth's potential engagement to John Dickinson," -> "Rumors at the time spoke of Elizabeth's supposed engagement to John Dickinson,"
  • Early life and family Para 2. "should such a relationship exist," -> "should such a connection exist," (i.e. don't repeat the workd 'relationship')
  • Early life and family Para 2. Same sentence: drop the word 'However".
  • Early life and family Para 2. "Mary would have been" -> "she would have been" (again, so we don't repeat Mary twice in the same sentence)
  • Marriage and children Para 1. I think this needs to be reordered; we launch into the house before we've even been introduced to Samuel. Rude. Suggest (and note teaks to the final sentence):
In a wedding officiated by Jacob Duché at Christ Church on August 7, 1769, Elizabeth married Samuel Powel.[19][20] Also of Quaker ancestry, Samuel was well traveled and, at the time, one of the richest merchants of Philadelphia. As a young man, he had inherited a fortune from his grandfather Samuel Powell who was among the first settlers of the Province of Pennsylvania and died in 1756.[19][b] This marriage brought together two of the most prominent mercantile families in the city.[24] Five days before the marriage, Samuel had purchased a home for his new family, later to be known as the Powel House; it was located on South Third Street in Philadelphia,[7][21] just south of Elizabeth's childhood home.[22][23]
  • Salonnière Para 1: She was married in 1769. This section tells us she opened her house to delegates in 1774. It begs the question whether she was a salonniere between 1769 and 1774. Put another way, we date her salonniere habit to 1774 when it may predate? Don't know if we have anything on this or can come up with a form of words to bridge those 5 years
  • Salonnière Para 2. I think we could afford another sentence on just how lavish their entertaining was? iirc there are refs to 20-course meals? I appreciate we've made the point, in part, with the Adams anecdote. (I'll try to hunt out a ref if you don't get to this first)
    • Actually, you have the info in Note d. Maybe promote and tweak that? e.g. start a sentence with "Indicative of the luxery of the Powel's entertaining is ... (and drop contents of note d here)
      • Done. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. Suggest: "He wrote in his diary of the provisions provided for guests" -> "His diary records an example of the luxury of the Powel's entertaining:"
  • American Revolution para 1. We need to beef up this para - it's quite weedy and fails to provide detail which we summarise in the lead. I think there are two main lacks:
    • We should make clear as sentence 1 that the American Revolutionary War started in April, and then go on to say that Samuel was elected in October. Remember, especially, that non-USians are not familiar with US history and get confused by its 'Revolutionary War' and 'War of Independence' and the 1812 war. It's fine to repeat American Revolutionary War as a link here.
    • We should add a sentence on the couple's view, or Elizabeth's view, on the whole revolution business - which seems to be equoivical? I appreciate we go into some more detail in Views, below, but the reader wants to know in this para whether they were loyalist or revolutionary or fence sitters.

Anchor break 3 (Tagishsimon) edit

With apologies, I have more substantive things to raise. I've been doing a little more reading, specifically J L Bell's blog series on the question - https://boston1775.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-republicif-you-can-keep-it.html and "The Account Books of Elizabeth Willing Powel: Part 1", "Part 2", and "Part 3".

I'll do some spadework on this, but you'll recall I raised queries about the significance and use of the Franklin question. We have the "A republic ... if you can keep it" section composed of two subsection. In these, we largely relate how the tale changed over time. Only once do we try to put this in context - "McHenry, a staunch Federalist, may have had political motivations for changing the story." A couple of things jump out of Bell's analysis 1) his specific point that the longer exchange omitting 'monarchy' and pointing to the "people, on tasting the dish" is << an explicit warning that “the people” could ruin the republic if they “eat more of it than does them good.” Again, that reflects Federalist thinking. A story of Powel worrying about monarchy had become a story about Franklin (now conveniently dead) worrying about democracy. [2] >>. We talk about Republic vs. Democracy, but not Republic versus The People 2) Bell throughout the series of posts provides us with the context for specific instances of use of the question, such as "In 1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to run for a third term raised the specter of monarchy again." [3] or Powel's 1814 comments about the question perhaps being an attempt to "keep the President above the sniping between the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian factions".[4] Or there's 1876 and Frederick J. Brown’s Sketch of the Life of Dr. James McHenry in which "The twenty-six-word anecdote that McHenry had written into his journal of the Constitutional Convention had, after nearly a quarter-century, grown into a firmly spelled out warning against popular democracy" [5]. For modern times we say "The same month, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, while announcing the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump in the House of Representatives, attributed the question to "Americans gathered on the steps of Independence Hall" - as if her attribution is the crucially important frame through which to view the question, when the more pertinent frame is the 2019 question of whether Trump is acting as a monarch.

From the account books (and associated) blog posts, I think there's more useful information for the 'Later life and death' section, and probably the 'Powel House, papers, and portraits' section; possibly other sections too. Examples of specific or general info I think we get might be 1) the $800 loan she made to secure a Black church 2) more general philanthropic activities 3) more emphasis that she continued her socially active life after Samuel's death (the papers are 1816-24, iirc) 4) the detail on, and importance and uses of the below-stairs life contained in the papers.

With regret, I think we need to go through the above sources again and, especially, improve our coverage of the question through time. I'll try to turn this into concrete editing suggestions tomorrow, since you must be getting tired of the whole thing by now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by this. This is becoming more about the quote and less about her. The expansion you are proposing would make this article a coat rack. Much of the monarchy vs republic vs. democracy vs. the people has little to do with Powel. All that belongs at "A republic, if you can keep it", or Benjamin Franklin, or even better James McHenry. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point. I'll make any (minimal) suggestions with that in mind. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagishsimon, BTW, I do not want you to think I don't want to write the article that answers the question of why the quote became important. I really really want to write that article as well. I fully intend to make the redirect "A republic, if you can keep it" into an article of its own. Maybe, you would like to write it with me. It would be nice DYK for the day after election day, no matter the outcome of that dumpster fire.
Can you summarize any lingering concerns you may have? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tagishsimon edit

I'm totally with you on the desirability of having A republic, if you can keep it and agree with your thinking. And yes, I'll try to help with it. You have covered all of the major points I raised with this article, and there are no minor points outstanding which mitigate against FA. I'm very grateful to you for the tireless work you have put in to the article. I support promoting this article to FA. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Firma_di_Elizabeth_Willing_Powel_(ritagliata).svg: the current tagging requires pre-1925 publication, not just creation; if that's not possible I'd suggest the PD-signature tag on Commons
  • File:A_lady_asked_Dr._Franklin_well_Doctor_what_have_we_got_a_republic_or_a_monarchy_–_A_republic_replied_the_Doctor_if_you_can_keep_it.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that we will probably need a follow up image review given the changes in the interim. GMGtalk 15:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm that your image review still stands? Thank you and sorry for calling you back. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When and where were File:Elizabeth_Willing_Powel_(c._1760).jpg and File:James_McHenry.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, AFAIK, File:Elizabeth_Willing_Powel_(c._1760).jpg was first published in 2016 on the source website. I have added {{PD-US-unpublished}} instead. File:James_McHenry.jpg appears to have first been published in 2004 by the US Gov on the NPS website from where it is source. Added the same template as former. Sound good? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ergo Sum edit

Having done the GA review for this article, I am quite happy with its quality and expect to support it for FA. I will just leave a few comments here:

  • In the lede, "Powelton Village, Philadelphia": since the actual name of it does not include Philadelphia and I can find no other Powelton Villages, I would rephrase the sentence to indicate as "Powelton Village in Philadelphia" or something like that.
  • I would move the List of mayors of Philadelphia link to the first instance of "mayor" in the first paragraph of Early life.
  • "Survived their birth" is a phrase unfamiliar to me. "Survived birth" or "survived past birth" more common to my ear. Completely aesthetic. Feel free to ignore.
  • I would move the link to Philadelphia to "Philadelphians."
  • The "uncommon command" quote should be modified. The part that comes after "and" does not flow from the beginning of the sentence. I recommend adding "[how her]" before "ideas"
  • On second thought, the subject of the quote is a little unclear. I would replace "her" with "Elizabeth", since her could have referred to her other sister.
  • The quote by Elizabeth Hamilton seems a little out of place. I'm not sure what it's supposed to be conveying.
  • I think you need a comma between wife and Martha.
  • Comma after 1798
    • Then I should add a comma before " in" to make it parenthetical. As it stands, the second clause has the same subject as the first and a comma is not needed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lone sentence about her burial should be adjoined to either the preceding or succeeding paragraph.

That's all I have. Ergo Sum 19:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ergo Sum, thank you again for your review. I believe I have addressed your concerns. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything checks out. Nice work. I'm happy to support. Ergo Sum 00:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Venicescapes edit

My expertise lies elsewhere, but I can offer a few observations.

In the section "Early life and family":

  • It is never actually stated that she was born in Philidelphia. It’s implied, but two Philidelphians could also be travelling.
  • I believe there's a confusion between the verbs immigrated to and emigrated from
  • I don't think the comma after merchant belongs. You have a compound predicate emigrated (immigrated)/ was.
  • When you say merchant(s), do you mean retail merchants or traders. Can you be more specific?
  • In the sentence about the wedding, I would keep the date and place of the ceremony together: In a wedding officiated by Jacob Duché at Christ Church on August 7, 1769, Elizabeth married Samuel Powel, at the time one of the richest merchants of Philadelphia.
  • The sentence about the children is rather confusing. If they died as infants, they clearly survived their birth. A solution could be: She and Samuel had four children; but two sons, both named Samuel, died as infants. (or died in infancy)
    • Your suggestion would mean that two survived. None of them lived past infancy. Two died at birth. Two sons, both named Samuel, died as infants. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
THe additional information helps. It was not clear that all of the children died. I think it would be clearer if you stated that two were stillborn. The other two, both named Samuel, died in infancy.Venicescapes (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have further expanded and clarified the section. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first sentence, I assume that the house was not known as Powel House when it was purchased. I believe this should be either later known as Powel House or now known as Powel House.
  • Since you mention that she opined on matters of state, perhaps it would be appropriate to talk about the topics and her positions, if known.
  • The fourth sentence is confusing: Her sister, Anne Francis, wrote to her sibling Mary Byrd wrote of the "uncommon command ….". It should be their sibling. What is Mary Byrd wrote referring to?

More to follow.Venicescapes (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Friendship with Washington":

  • The section seems underdeveloped.
  • Can you say when and how the relationship began?
  • As mentioned, this is not my field, but the section seems to imply that Powel’s intervention was the sole reason for Washington’s decision to stand for a second term. I think there should be a broader discussion.

In the section "A republic ... if you can keep it"

  • Consider rewording as: The first account of the story was recorded by a delegate of the Convention, James McHenry, on the last page of his journal about the Convention. The entry, dated September 18, 1787, also records that "The lady here alluded to was Mrs. Powel of Philad[elphi]a."
  • Never remarried and lived on as a widow are redundant.
  • There are several instances of compound predicates with the second verb incorrectly set off by a comma.
  • Future in the past (… and would inherit her wealth) can be effective but should be used sparingly. It appears several times in the article.
    • I believe I have removed other instances of this. This one may be warranted since her death is treated later and this sentence is in reference to John Hare's expectations of inheritance. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentences with multiple subordinate clauses should probably be divided.

In the section "Legacy"

  • In the sentence Led by Frances Wister, the house..., I assume you mean Under the leadership of... or Upon the initiative of.... Led cannot refer to the subject house.
  • Do you have any information as to the extent of the restoration of the house? Are all rooms restored/furnished? How long did the restoration last? When was the museum opened?
  • What was the nature of the documents that were discovered?
    • Added "consisting mostly of financial records and inventories in her handwriting". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it should be: at the time of the Constitutional Convention
  • How was the exchange adapted over time? In literature? In film/stage? In historical works?
    • All the above. It is better to show than tell. The article gives examples of a journal, a film, a stage production, a speech, and several literary and historical works. I have added another example of a historical work by Walter Isaacson. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the last paragraph refers to the statement alone and neither of the speakers, Pelosi and Gorsuch, associate the exchange with Powel, I'm not sure if it's pertinent... unless you show how the figure of Powel diminished over time with the conclusion that she is no longer mentioned.Venicescapes (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is exactly the theme of the paragraph that precedes this one: how she was replaced by an anonymous "lady" and how the setting of the exchange was moved from one of her parties to the steps of Independence Hall. All culminating to the point that when the quote resurfaced in Pelosi's speech and Gorsuch's book, Elizabeth was not mentioned. Gorsuch spefically refers to "a passerby" asking the question which is mentioned in a footnote (now moved into the body). It was only after several historians wrote articles pointing that out that her name became well-known and I ended up starting this Wikipedia article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence: The collection of about 256 pages, consisting mostly of financial records and inventories in her handwriting, were given to PhilaLandmarks for safekeeping., change were to was in order to agree with subject collection.

Your proposal to trace the changing perceptions of the quote certainly has merit, but I think the task you’ve set for yourself requires considerably more research and analysis. To begin with, there is no mention of nineteenth-century portrayals. You mention that the quote was published in 1908. Was this the first instance? If so, how was the quote 'rediscovered'? Is there a reference to Powel in 1908?

With reference to the 1986 miniseries, many aspects are not explained: who made the decision to portray Powel as a flibbertigibbet and on what basis? Was this portrayal based on a preceding work; was it following in a trend already underway; was it a radical departure from tradition? How is she portrayed in the play Com[promising] Future? In those accounts where Powel is not present, is she always replaced with a generic woman? You say that over time, the setting was also changed. When was the change first made (or what is the first evidence you can find); by whom? Was the change due to a lack of knowledge of historical facts, or was it deliberate? If the latter, for what reason? Were there other venues proposed or just the house or Independence Hall?Venicescapes (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venicescapes, I have rewritten the last paragraph and added a bit to the penultimate paragraph. Does this version make more sense? I have tried to include how the questioner is described in every instance whenever I could find info. I could not find any more information about her portrayal in the miniseries or the play. I have added more info about the play but I am starting to think mentioning it at all was undue. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have also traced the quotes history back to 1908 and from 1787 upto 1811. I have not found any appearances of the story between 1811 and 1908. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking my observations into account.
  • In the sentence Powel remembered an account of the conversation also appearing in Zachariah Poulson's Daily Advertiser but could recall on what date., insert not after could: Powel remembered an account of the conversation also appearing in Zachariah Poulson's Daily Advertiser but could not recall on what date.
  • Consider rewriting the sentence The story of Powel's exchange with Franklin was adapted over time, with the role played by Powel all but removed in 20th-century versions, while Franklin's response continued to be attributed to him. as The story of Powel's exchange with Franklin was adapted over time. While Franklin's response continued to be attributed to him, the role played by Powel was all but removed in 20th-century versions.
  • Tracing how information (in this case a quote) is received, altered, and transmitted over time is, alas, not easy. The best solution, in my opinion, requires some restructuring.
(1) I agree that the reference to the student play is undue and would definitely remove the information about the students' play since it's not known how she was portrayed in the play.
(2) I would then move the sentences: According to Mickey Herr of PhilaLandmarks, Powel's relationship with Washington was later "looked at with jaded eyes". Herr specifically criticized the 1986 miniseries George Washington II: The Forging of a Nation —in which Powel is played by Penny Fuller— for portraying her as "a flibbertigibbet of the first order". to the section "Friendship with Washington" (perhaps as a footnote). In its present location, it stands alone, having nothing to do with the previous paragraph (the house as a museum and documents) nor the following paragraph which talks about the quote.
(3) Move the entire section ""A republic ... if you can keep it"" under "Legacy" as a second subsection. You can create a first subsection "Powel house museum" (or something similar). There are several advantages. It keeps "Later life and death" with the rest of the biographical information (which is certain, whereas the quote is attributed). It also enables you to better analyze the development of the quote.
(4) After the sentences Powel remembered an account of the conversation also appearing in Zachariah Poulson's Daily Advertiser but could not recall on what date. Historian J. L. Bell notes that he did not locate the story in the Daily Advertiser, and it did appear elsewhere, so Powel may have misremembered where else, besides McHenry's writings, she had seen it., begin a new paragraph with McHenry's journals on the Constitutional Convention first appeared in print, in its entirety including the footnote mentioning Powel, in the April 1908 issue of The American Historical Review. It is to this publication that Bartleby.com and The Yale Book of Quotations trace the anecdote's recent history., followed by The story of Powel's exchange with Franklin was adapted over time. While Franklin's response continued to be attributed to him, the role played by Powel was all but removed in 20th-century versions. (You'll probaby need to adjust the wording of the sentence. Consider: However, the story of Powel's exchange with Franklin has been adapted over time.)
(5) Move the sentence In later versions, the setting of the exchange was revised from Powel House to the steps of Independence Hall or the streets of Philadelphia. to the end of the penultimate paragraph. You have two topics: the identity of the lady and the place that shouldn't be jumbled. Also, in this way, the sentence Powel herself was often replaced with an anonymous "lady", "woman", or "concerned citizen" should follow The story of Powel's exchange with Franklin was adapted over time. While Franklin's response continued to be attributed to him, the role played by Powel was all but removed in 20th-century versions.
(6) You may have to adjust some of the wording, but I think it would logically flow much better. I'd be happy to take another look. If it's easier, I could also make the edits for your review and approval.Venicescapes (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Venicescapes I am not sure about the above. I am much more accustomed to writing in a more chronological order and keeping a clear line between events that occurred during her life separate from events after her death. Let's see what GreenMeansGo thinks because I am always open to a change of opinion. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm...I may need a little bit to reread the sources and think. I seem to have run out of my "quiet time" this morning to really get knee deep in research. GMGtalk 15:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that all references above to 1908 should have been 1906. I introduced that typo. Apologies. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mine is merely a suggestion and could be wrong, although it might be advantageous to avoid mixing biographical facts and a tradition with limited documentation. I appreciate the information you've been adding. It fleshes out the biography nicely.Venicescapes (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Venicescapes, I assume then that we only need to flesh-out the part about her convincing Washington to stay for a second term before we earn your support in this FAC. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. I just saw the new layout. Much better. My compliments. I hope you're equally pleased. I noticed that you've added quite a bit of information. So, I'd like to do a copyedit. It will probably take a few days. But the article is well on its way to FA.Venicescapes (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Venicescapes, give me a couple more days. I have a bit more to add to connect the dots and address comments from another reviewer above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I had just started. Here's what I have for now. Please let me know when you're ready. Nice job.
  • In the lead, at the end of the second paragraph, I assume it's "concerned citizen".
  • In "Early life and family":
Consider using past perfect: Charles had immigrated to the city at the age...
I would delete twice since you've given two dates. Perhaps: ...in 1748 and again in 1754.
In the sentence Ann descended from a Quaker family..., the verb should be immigrated. Also, I would use past perfect: ...who had immigrated to ...
It should be engagement to: ...Elizabeth's potential engagement to John Dickinson....
Consider either ...but died at two weeks of age... or but died after only two weeks...
In the sentence The death of all her children and her constant depression throughout her life it's not clear (only implied) that the depression is linked to the loss of the children. Consider: The death of all her children and the constant depression that resulted throughout her life...Venicescapes (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, nice work. Let me know when you'd like a copyedit. In the meantime, there are a few points on standardization. (1) Make sure that the notes are always in numerical sequence. For example, in the "American Revolution" section, at the end of the sentence: He found them to be "very agreeable, sensible people"., invert notes 41 and 38. This occurs several times in the article. (2) You have several quotes but use two formats. The quote from the letter to Washington appears in a box on the right, whereas the others appear centred in the text. I would standardize these and recommend the latter format so as to avoid too much on the right of the page. (3) There are various widths to the images which gives the page a haphazard look. I would give a standard, default width. None of them is so elongated that the image would be disproportionately large.Venicescapes (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Venicescapes, all taken care of. Feel free to continue your copy-editing but note there is still a review above that will add more material to the page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll slowly go through it. Here are a few points:
  • In the sentence Washington renewed his friendship with the couple when he returned to Philadelphia (initially without Martha) for the Constitutional Convention in May 1787., invert notes [49][36] to maintain numerical sequence. Is it necessary to specify without Martha?
  • I would move the reference notes to the end of the quotes.
  • Nah, that is just my style. I have good reason but it will take too long to explain. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OkayVenicescapes (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Later life and death":
Consider: In 1793, Philadelphia suffered (instead of underwent) an epidemic of yellow fever, during which the Washingtons invited the Powels to seek refuge at Mount Vernon.
  • Changed to "experienced". It used to say suffered but someone complained. I don't remember who or for what reason. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works as well.
Consider moving Following the death of George Washington in December 1799, she was among the first to write to the widowed Martha, and continued correspondence with the Washington family, including George's nephew, Bushrod Washington, for whom she had purchased a gift of black satin robes upon his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court in April 1799. to the section about Washington, giving priority to related topics as opposed to strict chronology. Also, as written, the comma after Martha should be deleted (compound predicate: She was ... and continued) You could also break this into two sentences.
  • Let me think about this one. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do give it some thought. I think it would work better.Venicescapes (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence She oversaw the management of her the estate and wrote increasingly on the subject of business., delete either her or the
I would rewrite as two sentences: She died on January 17, 1830. Her funeral five days later was, according to Maxey, a well-attended "social event and a religious experience" presided over by William White, the bishop of Pennsylvania. (note well-attended with the hyphen)
I would rewrite as: The property in Blockley Township included a Greek Revival country home, built by Elizabeth in the early 1800s, which John Hare expanded in 1824–25 on the basis of designs from architect William Strickland. Additionally: He also inherited her mansion on Chestnut Street which he converted into a hotel named Marshall House and then leased to Samuel Badger who operated it from 1837 to 1841.Venicescapes (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done except for "on the basis of designs from". I think "with designs from" is just fine. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venicescapes #2 edit

You've added quite a bit of information (all very good). So I started from the top.

  • In the Lead:
Redlinks are ok, but in the lead they can be very glaring. I would eliminate of the Republican Court. It doesn’t seem to be essential at this point anyway.
Add commas: Extensively, but privately, on a wide range of subjects...
I would move The setting of the exchange was revised from her home at the Powel House to the steps of Independence Hall. to the end of the paragraph. It's wedged in between two sentences which both discuss her and not the place.
I would move the sentence The Powel House was later renovated and reopened to the public as a museum. to the end of the paragraph. It's interupting the biographical information.Venicescapes (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Early life and family" section:
Can you reword this sentence: She also commissioned a mourning portrait c. 1793 to retrospectively depict her in this period for her private viewing and as a reminder.?
  • This was in the wrong place. I have moved it. Can you reread and tell me if still does not make sense. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now it makes more sense.Venicescapes (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "American Revolution" section:
Consider: When British troops withdrew from the city, Elizabeth emerged among the most prominent Philadelphian socialites of the post-revolution period, establishing the Philadelphia salon of the Republican Court which consisted of the leading intellectual and political figures of colonial America.Venicescapes (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Salonnière" section:
Avoid false titles: As the historian...
  • This article is written in American English. Adding a the before false titles is strange to Americans. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Insert comma: contemporary elites, including
Consider: In at least one instance, Adams recalled enjoying what, from his Puritan perspective, was "a most sinful feast".
  • In the section "Friendship with Washington":
If possible, avoid two relative clauses. Consider: They were officially introduced on January 6, 1779 at a Twelfth-Night ball, hosted by the Powels and attended by the Washingtons who were celebrating the 20th anniversary of their marriage. There are other possibilities.
Change to record: His diary and various letters record frequent visits to the home. Alternatively, In his diary and various letters, he recorded frequent visits to the home.
Insert comma after reflections (compound sentence): In her own words, her "mind was thrown into a train of reflections", and she considered it...
Can you change one of the she wrotes: She wrote Washington urging him to reconsider. In a letter dated November 17, 1792, she wrote.
Insert the and comma: ...not offended by the strongly worded, seven-page letter...
  • Added "the". I don't think a comma is needed. Removed "also" which might help your reading. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hobby sounds modern and seems out of place. How about leisure activity or pastime?

Images

It's not critical, but you might want to experiment with image placement for a more polished look. You have a cluster of images at one point. Some ideas to consider could be:

increasing the size of the portrait in the infobox so that the three spaces (left, right, above) are all the same
placing a portrait of McHenry in a multi-image template along with the except from the diary
adding a portrait of Franklin
moving the portrait of Powel by Alexander to the section "Later life and death"
moving the image of the withdrawing room to the section "Powel House…" where it’s actually mentioned
moving the image of Samuel to the marriage section and placing in a multi-image template along with the portrait of Elizabeth by Pratt. The two portraits are almost contemporary and correspond to the period discussed in that section … perhaps a horizontal arrangement with the two portraits facing one another would work nicely.

I’m not sure if the black-and-white photo of the house adds much … perhaps a coloured photo … perhaps in a multi-image template along with the interior.

  • I have taken most of these suggestions. I have to disagree about the black-and-white photo. I think it is better than a modern color photo. The exterior of the building has deteriorated since its renovation almost 90 years ago. I think the 1960s photos better show the efforts done to restore the house. As for the withdrawing room exhibit, I have moved it to the section on Washington. The section mentions Powel often having tea with Washington. Besides the guest bedroom where he would have slept as a guest, he would have spent the most time in this room flirting over tea with Elizabeth. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should finish the rest tomorrow.Venicescapes (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest:

  • In the section "Views":
Delete comma after politics: She discussed politics and the education and social standing of women…
Insert that: … saying of David Hume and of deist philosophers generally, that they were like a person who would leave a family homeless….
The article a followed by c. is a little confusing, especially since a tiny dot appears before the c.. I had to stop for a second and study it. Try: In a letter to Maria Page, Mary's recently married daughter, c. 1784, Powel…. Alternatively, you could spell out circa: In a circa 1784 letter…
I don’t think have can be substituted by the action verb do. Either: By 1790, the family no longer held slaves in their service, although their peers and neighbors continued to do so. Or By 1790, the family no longer had slaves in their service, although their peers and neighbors continued to have them.
Delete former since at that moment they would have still been her employers: who was unhappy with the treatment of her former employers
Delete comma after woman: was ultimately a free woman and could
Either traced back to as early as 1814 or traced back to at least 1814
  • In the secion "A Republic...":
Insert comma after entry: The entry, dated September 18, 1787,...
Optional comma after Advertiser for contrast: ...appearing in Zachariah Poulson's Daily Advertiser, but could not recall on what date.
Change its to their to agree with journals: ...journals on the Constitutional Convention first appeared in print, in their entirety.
Change is to was: When Powel was included...
Maintain sequence of Gorsuch/Pelosi as in text: ...neither Gorsuch nor Pelosi...
  • In the final section:
Consider preservation instead of safekeeping
Same as above with the a c.. Consider: The earliest of these is a miniature, c. 1760,... or spell out circa.
Delete either latter or Pratt since either is sufficient to identify which portrait: provenance of the latter Pratt portrait
  • Are you sure? Pratt made two portraits and there is a later portrait by Alexander. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Insert the: ...engage with the viewer...

That's it.Venicescapes (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venicescapes, thank you so much for your review and patience! If you have no further comments, I hope gain your support before I finish up with the review above. Needless to say, you are always welcome to edit the article directly. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned initially, I do not have specific expertise with regard to the subject, nor do I have access to any of the sources. So, I am not able to determine if it well-researched and neutral. My support is therefore limited to specific criteria. The article is well-written, but as it is still evolving, a final copyright will likely be necessary. With the addition of information since it was first nominated, it is comprehensive yet stays focused. The structure was redone and is now appropriate. Images are also appropriate, although layout and sizing could be further improved for aethetics (admittedly subjective).Venicescapes (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeComments by Ceoil edit

There are A LOT of detailed prose concerns above. Form a quick scan I can see why. Is the article fully prepared for FAC or does it need a week or two of copy editing. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To note am following all the on-going work.....Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The review is now almost twice as long as the article (153kb vs 66kb). I think it should have been asked to have been archived earlier, should have done so myself. I continue to oppose...such a radical re-write (which is still on-going) during FAC sets a poor precedent.

From the lead;

  • After the American Revolutionary War, she once again - remove "once" so not to sound so old fashioned
  • a politically connected woman seems patronising. All "high-profile parties" are "well-attended"...the last bit sound like from a contemporary gossip column
    • These are statements of fact. She associated with political figures. "high-profile" speaks to the quality of the guest list. "well-attended" speaks to number in attendance. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point and leading me to question the use of old sources. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need a throughout review of sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a tense issue in "took her place among the most prominent Philadelphian socialites, establishing" ...'to establish'
    • There is not. The clause beginning with "establishing" modifies what precedes it, hence the comma. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She "wrote increasingly on the subject of business", "wrote increasingly" is vague, while "business" is a huge topic area.
  • that convinced him to continue for a second term as president...why is "as" included in the blue link
I think you have this backwards. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story of Powel's exchange with Franklin was adapted over time ..."Powel's exchange with Franklin..."
  • The setting of the exchange was also revised from her home at the Powel House to the steps of Independence Hall...."revised" should be relocated surely, 'meeting' rather than 'exchange'
    • The setting did not change, only the retelling changed. So relocated is not the right word. Changed "exchange" to "conversation". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hundreds of letters to and from her and several portraits by various artists - "exchanged"
  • the collections of institutions in the United States - where? Would just say survive.

Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Changed to "survive". But the lead is a summary. The location of the portraits can be found in the body of the article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and family:

  • both prominent Philadelphians of their day - Would remove this in the spirit of 'show don't tell'...and you say anyhow later. Also "of their day" is more antiquated language
    • The article does show in the sentences that follow. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are duplicting statement facts in an article thats already verbose and padded in similar ways. If you can cut with loosing meaning, but. Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ann descended from a Quaker family - came from
  • wealthy enough to easily afford - either drop "enough" or "easily"
  • Dorothy was married to Walter Stirling in 1753 - Dorothy married Walter Stirling...
  • who had inherited their home after their father's death in 1754
    • "had" is appropriate because the father's death precedes the time period of the next clause and the sentences before this one. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This all resulted in increased pressure on Elizabeth - "This all" is not encyclopedic language Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. But now the sentence has lost value because the intent was to indicate that her elder sisters' marriage also was a contributing factor. Now it reads like Thomas having more children was the only cause of pressure on Elizabeth. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • thats the point. A lot of rewriting needs to happen here so it is, elegant, clear, and in modern language. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage and children

  • Section opens with In a wedding officiated by Jacob Duché at Christ Church on August 7, 1769, - very old fashioned and a bit "magaziny"; better to say "their wedding was officiated by..."
  • well traveled and, at the time, one of the richest merchants of Philadelphia - well travelled? In rather than of Philadelphia
  • Elizabeth gave birth four times, but all of her children died young - Each of her four children died young.
  • before he died on July 14, 1771. On August 6, 1771, her second child, can this be rephrased so the dates "July 14, 1771" and "August 6, 1771" are not consecutively written.
  • The death of all her children - remove "all"
  • lamenting her unfulfilled dreams of motherhood - "motherhood" is not right considering each of the four children survived childbirth.
    • Changed to "raising a child". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • GreenMeansGo, please see this. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure I really see the issue re: the suffix "hood". She was a mother, but she never really experienced motherhood as they never had a childhood, just as you may have an estranged adopted brother but never experience brotherhood, just as a 19-year-old who does nothing but play games in their parent's basement has yet to experience adulthood. There is...at least in my understanding...an assumption in the suffix of the essential holistic aspect of the state, and not merely the strict literal definition of the state itself. This is a divergent usage of the suffix from things like statehood or knighthood, which is a literal reference to the state itself and not the essential qualities of experiencing the state. GMGtalk 15:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She also commissioned a mourning portrait - drop "also" Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because tense. The following statement "to retrospectively depict her in this period for her" is a mess. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the sentence. The portrait is covered in a later section. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salonnière

  • As historian Zara Anishanslin observes, most women were excluded from the political institutions of the day - Would drop att to Anishanslin, if this is a metter of fact.
  • followed the fashion of a French salon - 'conventions', rather than 'fashion'
  • and often opined on matters of state herself - drop "herself" Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolution

  • and began his first term on October 3, 1775.[28][38] By July 1776 - consecutive dates again.
  • specifically that which they owned outside the city - "those" rather than "that which"
  • This page is not well written. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No you have not, a number of you refutations are blasse, and anyway, I could go through the article again and come up with the same amount of points if I had the energy. My oppose, fwitw, stands. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say I have addressed your concerns. Only that I have responded to them. Whether your concerns have been addressed is for you to say. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After imbibing a selection - imbibing? better to say "drinking". Not sure either about the following "emboldened". Again, olden language.
  • admire a view of the city - "the" not "a"; its not as if they made a choice
  • 'venturing out to climb the steeple of a nearby church - "venturing" also 19th century, or fanciful, language
  • extensive destruction of property - what does this mean; burning, theft, reparation? It seems the sentence in the following para attempts to explain this, but is misplaced, nd should come earlier - "During the occupation of the city as part of the Philadelphia campaign, the family home was taken over by the British."
    • I have tried to clarify the section. Very little information is available from this period. The most reliable sources such as Maxey are circumspect on the matter but mostly say that the reports of Samuel's patriotism "cannot be readily substantiated". The older sources and some of the less reliable modern sources lionize both Samuel and Elizabeth. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now Strong oppose, the more I read the more work I see needed.[6] Ceoil (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, this edit has introduced information that is unverifiable. The portrait is currently on loan, which you would realize if you only checked the citation attached. I have to assume you are just trying to make this more difficult. If you had only asked, I could have assuaged this non-concern without making the sentence false. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C&C, I don't understand; the word loan doe not appear appears in the text in any version. However "kept" is still the more usual word than "remains", especially if the loan is not specified either in therms of the lender or loan period. Ceoil (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source states "ON LOAN: YES". My issue is not with the word "kept" which is perfectly acceptable. The issue is that you wrote "kept in". If you had asked, I would have changed "remains in the collection of" to "is kept by". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
..establishing the Philadelphia salon of the Republican Court from the leading intellectual and political figures of colonial America.[41][43][44] - is the word "from" right here...was it a breakaway? Ceoil (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was bit more of a herding process. Political life returning from a state of general disarray: the Congress in exile in York, the two most important political cities under military occupation, not to mention just the war in general. In a more extended sense, one could say "from among the elite, who at this point were largely scattered, they reformed informal institutions of political, economic, and social power." GMGtalk 12:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. That makes sense. Re informal institutions of political, economic, and social power. - that insight would make a great addition, and bring the para further alive, if you have access to sources. Ceoil (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need to read back through the sources to figure out wording. Was just kindof going from memory. GMGtalk 13:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great if you could. As I say it gives colour and context for, eg Europeans that mightened have this stuff in memory. When you get a chance. Ceoil (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bit more context there, and we've at least now blue-linked it, though the subject definitely deserves more than a stub. GMGtalk 11:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will note that many of the changes that were undone this morning were made in response to comments above. Ceoil, I also do not understand the removal of commas here, in the sentence: The Powels maintained a substantial cadre of slave free and indentured servants. There should be a comma before and after "free". Serial commas are a stylistic choice and removing the comma before "free" makes no sense. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my oppose in recognition of the herculean and tireless effort by Coffeeandcrumbs. I recognise all the work reviewers have and continue to put into the page, and it has paid off. Am following Gerda's review below, and now close to supporting on prose. Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ceoil, I have taken to heart your concern that this article was ill prepared. I am sorry, and I will not make that mistake again. I do want to see if you have any further concerns or comments, if you are interested. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pleased to now be able to Support...Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda edit

I had this on my to-do-list for August, so a last-minute look, and no look at the above, just the article, leaving the lead for last. Will comments as I read but save now to not cause edit conflicts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • ... "and family"? There's much more talk about family later. Perhaps nothing. Quite normal to mention parents and siblings in someone's early life.
  • Do we know from where her parents immigrated?
  • "... her education" after talking about her mother is too ambiguous for my taste.
  • "quickly began to fill the house with children of his own" sounds a tad too colloquial, and no child is some father's "own", no?

Marriage ...

  • Quite a jump from not that suitor, but marrying another.
    • I am afraid, we know nothing of their engagement. I re-read the sources and they all go from the 1768 letter about the rumor straight to her wedding in August 1769. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For symmetry, can Elizabeth Powel have a given name in the image caption?
  • I don't need "and third son", - the name tells that.
  • "lamenting her unfulfilled aspirations of motherhood" - perhaps it's just me coming from German where "lament" has negative connotations, but is there any other word, or perhaps better none?
    • I think "lamenting" is the word we want. Something between "mourning" and "regretting". Her letters about her children are really sad. There is one poem quoted in the notes section. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salonnière

  • "Mrs." sounds sort of wrong put in the mouth of a French nobleman.

American Revolution

  • "Samuel" alone seems not proper for an elected mayor.
    • I have to. It would be sexist not to. This article is about Eliza Powel. He is a side piece. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elizabeth's loyalty remains a mystery." That sentence could mean diverse things, no?
    • Changed to "Elizabeth's allegiance during the war remains uncertain." We really don't know. I slightly expand on this in the Views section. We really don't know what side she was on. There is info on her sisters and her brother. Some info on Samuel's views but nothing substantive about what she thought about the revolution. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G. W.

  • Somehow I feel I would have liked to have known that sooner, in chronology.
    • Although they met before the war, they were officially introduced and really became close friends and frequent correspondents after the war. A reviewer above wanted to know when they first met which is why I added the earlier meeting. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer the ref for the quote after it.
    • I think it is cleaner above and I have other reasons to do with the Visual Editor. I can't change it if it is a problematic. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George and Elizabeth" seems wrong for people who seem not have addressed each other as such.
    • There are two Powels and two Washingtons in the section. I really don't have much choice. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have to know that Martha is Mrs. W.?
  • "Samuel" - similar problem with given name alone

Later life ...

  • "Samuel contracted and later died of the disease in September."? - or is it just me (wanting to give more than given name facing death, and wanting disease after contracted)?
    • Can't do anything about the given name. Moved "disease" next to "contracted"
  • "and wrote more often on the subject" - more than what?

That's it for today, and I'll be out for most of tomorrow. - I think the names question is hard to solve, - had the same problem for the Schumanns in Clara Schumann. Good luck. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, yeah, the names thing is really not an issue for me. I have read many FAs where the wife is referred to by just her given name many times in the article. It seems unavoidable to me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in late today, as predicted: thank you for many adjustments! Good Main page today ;) - more on my talk. When I began work on Clara Schumann, she was called just Clara from start to finish, as major sourced also had. I changed that, prompted by concerns from John, about sounding overly familiar, and unlikely the same would happen to a man. - I usually have last name only, and when distinction between people is needed, often say "her husband" or "the couple". (I wonder if the "George and Elizabeth" sentence could profit from something like that, - given names alone suggest an intimacy that possibly wasn't there.) For the sentence about someone's death, I usually use the full name, any case, even if clear. - For what I read, with your changes, I could support, but will probably not get to reading further today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt, in this edit, I was able to get rid of a lot of the given names (indluding "George and Elizabeth") following your suggestions. I could not figure out how to get rid the given name in the sentence about Samuel's death. Giving both his names just seems wrong to me when he has already been introduced. If the roles were reversed, we would not blink an eye at a wife's first name alone being used in that sentence. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Role of women

  • The end of the first para has a long construction, with two quotes, in which I am not sure which "arrangement" is meant. Formally, every quote should come with a ref right behind it.

Slavery

  • "cadre of slave, free, and indentured servants" - "slaves"? strange comma?

I am ready to support at this point. Take care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you very much for the review. As always it is a pleasure working alongside you. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

It seems that this is the major missing element, so I will take a pot at it. @Coffeeandcrumbs and GreenMeansGo: have either of you had previously successful FAC nominations? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I believe that GreenMeansGo has had one. This is my first nomination. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did my first FA a few years ago. Though I've mostly been doing GAs lately. GMGtalk 11:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several cites should read 'pp.', not "pp."; eg 36 and 45.
  • Be consistent as to whether or not you give publisher locations.
  • Funk: WP:SCHOLARSHIP states "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Is that the case here?
  • Templier: similarly.
    • I have removed a few instances of this. GreenMeansGo, do you want to weigh in on the remaining cites to Templier. I would like to keep it if possible. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there is a decent argument under SCHOLARSHIP. Poking around this morning, I see Templier's thesis cited here by historian François Furstenberg. I see her cited here by Billy Penn, which is a joint project by PBS and NPR.
I'll admit that I'm maybe grading on a curve a little bit. It would be hard to argue that a few cites to a Master's thesis on George Washington would constitute significant influence, given that you could fill entire libraries with sources on Washington. In comparison, you'd be hard pressed to fill a large book shelf with the works on Powel. Such is the case with many 18th century women.
But when we can see another historian citing her thesis, and folks with the journalistic credentials of PBS and NPR citing her thesis in the same breath as Maxey, that ain't half bad as a proportion of the total extant works on the subject. It shows us that at least this wasn't just lost and forgotten in the archives of the Université de Montréal. If we had a thesis where say (I dunno) 1.4% of all works on Washington cited it, that would be pretty significant, though in the case of Washington, that 1.4% would be many thousands of citations.
Perhaps adding that Templier herself appears to have gone on to be a fellow at John Hopkins, and to apparently teach history at the University of Ottawa... that all ain't half bad either. At the end of the day, Roof and Pen is probably one of only a handful of modern longer-form works specifically dedicated to Powel, and it doesn't seem to be merely an amateur work of a passing student that immediately faded into obscurity. GMGtalk 11:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will reiterate GMG's point that we really only have two scholars that have studied Powel in detail, Maxey and Templier. I will add that she also wrote "Elizabeth Willing Powel et la sociabilité de la plume : discours sur la place et l’éducation des femmes et l’agentivité féminine dans l’écriture épistolaire" published in Cahiers d'histoire [fr]. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The it's the best source we have argument doesn't cut it, but that doesn't matter, because I am convinced by GMG's argument.

I'll let you have a look at these while I do some spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does the Find a Grave link add to the article? Do you consider it a reliable source? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed it and added the inscription on the grave to the article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That bit was almost certainly me. I tend to add FaG simply because it normally has non-free images of their burial site, in cases where we do not have an equivalent image we can use here in the article itself. Though removing it isn't a massive detriment either way. GMGtalk 11:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's all done. I need to get to the spot checks.

Spot checks - pass edit
  • Cite 1: tick.
  • Cite 129: tick.
  • Cite 5: tick.
  • Cite 72b: "According to Maxey, her later writing seems to suggest there may have been at least one Patriot at the Powel House." I am unsure what this means. If it is a round about way of saying that Powel was patriotic, either in general or in 1812 I suggest that you simply say so. (Although if the latter, this seems covered by the following sentence and quote.)
  • Cite 87: tick.
  • Cite 125: tick.
  • Cite 61: tick.
  • Cite 68: tick.
  • Cite 83: you have, I think, confused "physician" - in the work cited - with physicist, and need to delete "and physics" from the article.
    • Done. I always thought this was strange. lol! To be fair to GreenMeansGo, the source has a typo and actually says "physicists such as Benjamin Rush". But Rush is clearly a physician and not a physicist. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! To be even more fair, knowing Rush et al to be physicians I misread the source as that! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Sorry. I'm not an expert on Rush, and these terms tend to get loosey goosey the farther back you go. Like...some guy who doodles on notepads and is really into the occult is a physicist. GMGtalk 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I shall cut this short. Impressive referencing, bar one humorous misreading.

A couple of actions above: against 72b and 83. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small things edit

Good work; well done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of support edit

I think this FAC might be done as at 2020-09-11. Summarising the above, we have:

Support
  • Support from Eddie891 - I like 'of the house' the best, personally. Happy to Support (mainly on prose) either way... I see there's a lot of talk below about comprehensiveness. As I don't have access to the sources, I'll leave that for others. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support from Gog the Mild - Not sure about solving all problems, but at least it gives us a fighting chance. A nice little article you have here. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support from Tagishsimon - I support promoting this article to FA. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2020
  • Clean image review from Nikkimaria - Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support from Ergo Sum - Everything checks out. Nice work. I'm happy to support. Ergo Sum 00:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support from Venicescapes - My support is therefore limited to specific criteria. The article is well-written, but as it is still evolving, a final copyright will likely be necessary. With the addition of information since it was first nominated, it is comprehensive yet stays focused. The structure was redone and is now appropriate. Images are also appropriate, although layout and sizing could be further improved for aethetics (admittedly subjective).Venicescapes (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support from Ceoil - Pleased to now be able to Support...Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support from Gerda Arendt - I am ready to support at this point. Take care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Source review and spot-checks from Gog the Mild - A couple of actions above: against 72b and 83. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Dissent
  • Nil

Well done & many congratulations to C&C & GMG; big thanks to all the FAC reviewers. (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not closing this FAC - way beyond my paygrade & not sure what the process is.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tagishsimon, this is very helpful but in my experience the FAC delegates are surprisingly up to date with not just the tally, but the weight of the support/opposes for each candidate article. Agree there is likely to be a satisfying resolution here, but its not for us to say. Later. Ceoil (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I look forward to the verdict of our FAC-gnome overlords. Meanwhile I respectfully disagree with your call on the trailing a in the signature alt. I think what we're seeing above the fullstop is in effect a tilde - see Tilde#Nasalization. Or in the alternative, it is a badly written h with a fullstop below it - a fairly standard name abbreviation like Wm, Ths (william, thomas). What it absolutely is not, is an a, nor should we make an unfounded suggestion that EWP signed herself off as Eliza. It's not, you'll be pleased to hear, a deal-breaker. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon, I have several sources that say she signed her name as "Eliza Powel". Maxey is cited in the article saying so here. McHenry also has a similar cursive handwriting where he trails off at the end of "Philada", short for "Philad[elphi]a". See Bell here. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The alt tag is describing what we can see in this instance of her signature, not describing what Maxey has seen elsewhere. Per your Philada example, this is *exactly* a contraction in which the last letter is employed to suffix a string of characters from the front of the name - thus Eliz h. You have invented an a which does not reasonably exist. That is a problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Elizabeth_Willing_Powel/archive1&oldid=1208510409"