Talk:John Custis/GA1

GA nomination successful following sufficient improvements made promptly

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this nomination. You can expect initial comments from me within a few days. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the infobox and lead section.

Infobox

• No qualms with File:John Custis IV by Charles Bridges, 1725.jpg
  • I'm sure it'd be pleased to hear that.
• Unless William Waters, Benjamin Nottingham, and Thomas Jones are likely to warrant articles in the near future, I'd unlink these names
  • Done
• Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, don't use flag icons here
  • Done
• Either list all children by name for consistency or just use a number. Don't mix the two different styles.
  • Done
• Based on the birth month listed, we can safely say this man died at age 71, rendering the "70–71" part unnecessary
  • Done

Lead

• Is an exact date of birth known? If so, then I would specify when that was.
  • My sources don't say the exact date of birth, unfortunately.
• Linking "Custis family of Virginia" to "First Families of Virginia" feels like an inappropriate WP:EASTEREGG when this isn't a close match to the title and that page doesn't even mention any Custises
  • Done

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

• It would help to include any known names of siblings. I found that one of his sisters was Sorrowful Margaret Custis.
  • My sources don't include the names of his siblings unfortunately. I've included the name of his sister.
• Commonly recognized terms like "firstborn" don't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK.
  • Done
• Sorry to nitpick, but contrary to what "the daughter" implies, Frances wasn't the only one Daniel Parke Jr. had (she was one of four). You can fix this by using "a daughter" or "the eldest daughter".
  • Done

I'll probably do this section-by-section, and by the way, the infobox child count should be changed when it turns out Custis had five in all (with one being born to a slave). We can discuss further details on his kids within other sections. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I've added the 5th child to the infobox

Political career

• "Custis' great-grandson" could be changed to "their great-grandson" to avoid repetition of surname plus Frances was one of George's great-grandparents just like John IV here was
  • Done
• Is it known what his wife died from? Regarding John III, a glance here doesn't give a firm indication whether it was more from gout or arthritis or something else.
  • Again, my sources don't say how Custis' wife died. Would you like the article to include information on how his father died?
    • Fair enough, and as long as you can provide an unambiguous cause (something clearer than what I linked above), I'm fine with such an addition. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • All I could find is what you have included above, so that is all I could include. Is it okay with you?
        talk) 17:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Wait, I actually found smallpox for her, and I would've preferred a more concrete answer for him but it's not a big problem.
          • Added smallpox for her.
• "citing the increasing financial unprofitability in growing and selling tobacco" reads awkwardly, maybe go with "because growing and selling tobacco was becoming less profitable"
  • Done
• Instead of "the plantation's slaves also came into Custis's possession", you'd be better off with "and inherited Lightfoot's slaves" or "and inherited the plantation's slaves". The semi-colon used doesn't feel right.
  • Done

Overall, no big problems with the article so far. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later life and death

• I'd avoid using "several" as you did twice in this section's first paragraph when that's an ambiguous term. Whenever possible, it's better to go with more specific counts.
  • My sources don't say exactly how many fir and pine trees Custis planted, only that it was more than one. Besides, I hope you will forgive me for saying that I don't think the exact number of trees this Virginian planter "planted" is all that important in the grand scheme of things, but I digress (thus, in my humble opinion the second use of "several" should stay). As for the first use of "several", its been reworded. Happy for any feedback on the paragraph as it is now.
• Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need to use the same citation more than once in a row within a paragraph. That means ref#13 (Martin 2017, pp. 63–64) only needs to be used at the end of "fir and pine trees", ref#14 (Wiencek 2003, p. 73) is only required at the end of "his Negro wench, Alice", and ref#2 (Leonard 1978, pp. 57–69) can just go towards the end of "familial cemetery of the Arlington plantation".
  • For the first cite, some other reviewer told me that every quote needs a cite at the end, no matter what. So, is that something you abide by, or no? If not, away the cite goes, but just wanted to let you know. The other cite has appropriately gone the way of the dodo.
• If you can find out when Alice gave birth to his namesake son, then I certainly would recommend including that
  • My sources (checks sources) don't actually say that to the best of my knowledge... I'm surprised you didn't try to push this article to GA standards, you seem more interested in the subject than I am!
• When discussing the opposition to Daniel's relationship with Martha, I would include a threat to disinherit him over that (to emphasize how strong the feeling was), and how she changed his mind
  • Done, in 'note form'
• Is it at least known what this guy got sick from before dying in 1749? I couldn't find a particular cause of death.
  • Neither could I, but I've included several medical issues he contracted prior to this death. Best I could do, amigo.
• Calling Daniel "the sole male heir" feels misleading when another son (Jack) was still surviving at the time he died
  • Jack may have been his son, but as a Black person in 18th-century Virginia, social convention dictated he would not have been allowed to inherit Custis' plantations and slaves. Changed "male" to "legitimate".

Chances are my next batch of comments will be the last (aside from any responses to what you write). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Damn, and here I was growing fond of our drawn out back-and-forth. Oh well...
  • @
    talk) 01:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • XD that gave me a nice laugh, and I apologize for getting sidetracked. Something I forgot to mention earlier is that File:John Wollaston - Daniel Parke Custis (1711-1757).jpg feels better for his son's page. Now to finish this off!

Personal life, family and legacy

• Unless you tell me otherwise, I'm guessing the names of the other two sons he had with Frances besides Daniel aren't known, though would be nice to have.
  • You're right on both points
• It feels a little odd to use "Parke Jr." here within "extensive debts that Parke Jr." after not previously using the suffix. We could use "his father-in-law" or "her father".
  • Done
• Be consistent with the date formats on this page; 7 December 1710 is written in DMY form unlike the previous dates using MDY.
  • Done
• Not sure the last paragraph is relevant here as it seems better for Daniel and Martha's own pages, but either way their mentioned daughter died before turning 18 (I do know from my prior familiarity with this First Lady that the couple's older two children had even shorter lives) and thus never became an adult unlike brother Jacky. 17 is only a teenager.
  • To be honest, this was the paragraph I felt most unsure about including, but I feel that it still belong here just to give information about his son, which in my view is still relevant enough to include here (sorry, I know most of your points are completely valid, but I feel as if I must make a stand here). His son inherited ownership over Custis' plantations and his fate is useful in letting the reader know about what happened to the family after Custis popped his clogs. I've reworded the bit about their daughter. Also, I'm again sorry to have to disagree with you, but in my view the painting of Custis' son is worthy of inclusion here. Is it really unnecessary in your view?
    talk) 22:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Eh, these are minor points compared to other things I wrote and aren't big enough concerns to stall the nomination any further, so I'll pass per your other improvements. Well done! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

• "Notes" are a separate entity from citations and therefore shouldn't be lumped into this section.
  • Done
• "Bibliography" is frowned upon as a vague section/subsection title when it could also refer to works written by a subject.
  • Changed

Overall

• Prose: Only some minor issues remain.
• Referencing: Each source looks credible and properly formatted
• Coverage: The final paragraph's inclusion is questionable
• Neutrality: No bias found
• Stability: Looks fine to me
• Media: I'm not convinced a picture of Daniel is worth adding here, even though I can definitely see why you added it. At least there are no copyright concerns with it regardless.
• Verdict: Starting now, the nomination will be placed on hold for seven days. I believe you'll be able to address my final comments within that time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]