Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mother Solomon/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2025 [1].

Mother Solomon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Solomon is an interesting footnote in Wyandot history. Alongside other Wyandots in Ohio, she was forced into Kansas by the Indian Removal Act, where her husband and children died of illness. However, she resettled in Ohio two decades later and lived out as a nanny and cultural activist.

I was inspired to write this article last year after finding Daughters of Aataentsic at the library and have since improved it with the help of many editors. Thanks to TechnoSquirrel69 and Kimikel for their thoughtful GAN reviews and to Dudley Miles for reviewing the article as a mentor. There was discussion at the peer review about the reliability of certain sources, and Dudley suggested that I ask for opinions on whether Marsh's book in particular has been properly assessed. Thanks in advance, Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: if I'm reading this right, this is a first nomination for Averageuntitleduser and thus needs a source spot check? RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And a plagiarism check. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (spot-check passes)

[edit]

Doing a source-to-text spot check. I'll be looking at [17, 18, 19, 21, 34, 38, 39, 41, 50, 54] from Special:Permalink/1283807770.

Ref 17
[edit]
  • President Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act, requiring Indigenous communities to move west of the Mississippi River, passed in 1830.[17]
Ref 18/19
[edit]
  • Treaty commissioners in the region, spurred on by the federal government, began pressuring Wyandots to leave, and nearby Lenapes and Shawnees signed their own removal treaties. However, Wyandot scouting parties out west in 1831 and 1834 rejected their proposed land tracts. Tensions peaked in 1841 when white men murdered the head chief Summundewat.[18][19]
    • I can't find "Encyclopedia of American Indian removal" anywhere, so again you'll need to send me scans of the relevant pages.
    • Verified, but as a minor point, Littlefield and Parins only says that "most of the Delawares had relocated west", not that they had signed a treaty (like it does for the Shawnees), so might be worth rewording that a bit. Also, as far as I can tell, this one source covers everything in the sentence, so Labelle citation can be dropped here.
Ref 21
[edit]
  • On July 12, 1843, Solomon gathered alongside hundreds at the Wyandot Mission Church. They grieved, spread flowers across the adjacent cemetery, and heard Squire give a farewell speech in the Wyandot language.[6][21][22]
    • Labelle
    • Most of this is verified in Labelle p 59; the only thing I can't find is that it was spoken in the Wyandot language. Perhaps that's in one of the other cited sources?
Ref 34
[edit]
Ref 38
[edit]
  • Labelle describes her childcare as tireless and daily, and the village nicknamed her "Mother Solomon" out of respect. Solomon promoted Wyandot culture throughout the village and demonstrated the Wyandot language in community gatherings and public presentations. She taught children about the relationships between their ancestors and Wyandots by repeating stories her elders had told.[38]
    • Labelle
    • Verified
Ref 39
[edit]
  • The Hocking Sentinel described her storytelling as "full of interest and romance". A writer for the newspaper claimed to have visited Solomon often and stated that she spoke for hours about early Wyandot history and her childhood.[39]
    • Verified.
Ref 41
[edit]
  • Solomon advocated for the village to restore and continue operating the run-down mission church as a means to preserve Wyandot presence in Ohio. In 1888, with a $2,000 budget,[h] the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church began repairs.[41]
  • On September 21, 1889, the Central Ohio Conference held a rededication ceremony.[41][42]
  • Solomon was the only Wyandot removed in 1843 to attend.[41][44]
    • Labelle
    • Essentially verified, but Labelle says "restore and preserve the mission". It's not clear if that means to restore the building as a monument/historic site, or as an ongoing religious establishment, so I'm not 100% sure about the "continue operating" part.
Ref 50
[edit]
  • Many adults attested to being raised by Solomon, and some deemed it an honor. Labelle believes that her attainment of the honorific "Mother", rather than the lesser "Sister" or "Auntie", indicated success in her work. She ascribes Solomon to a Midwestern, 19th-century wave of mothers who sought to mediate between settler and Indigenous groups.[50]
    • Labelle
    • Verified. If I wanted to be really annoying I might complain that there's some WP:CLOP around "mediate between settler and Indigenous groups" but I think what you've got is fine. If you made it a direct attributed quote, it would be better.
Ref 54
[edit]
  • Marsh died and was buried there two years later. In October 2016, the church held an event celebrating the bicentennial of missionaries in Ohio, and Solomon's life was recounted during a tour of the cemetery attended by 192 people.[54]

OK, this is done. I called out a few nits here and there, but nothing of significance. Spot-check passes for both source-to-text integrity and copying (I also ran Earwig, which reported no problems).

Comments from PMC

[edit]

This looks cool, I'll take a look. I usually get to FAC reviews within a week of putting my name down but please give me a ping if I let it slide. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: pinging, but no rush. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry! Having a look now.
Lead
  • "forced Wyandots to move to Kansas" - feels like "the Wyandots" reads more smoothly, since you're referring to the entire tribe
  • "took her to Indigenous sites as a child" I think this needs more context. Religious sites? Culturally-significant-but-not religious sites? Sites of great battles? Also, as a reader, I'd want to know what this meant for her, since it's significant enough that we're putting it in the lead.
  • Suggest linking mission school, and in the body also
  • "The Indian Removal Act forced Wyandots to move to Kansas..." repetitive of para 1, one of them should go
    • I think this detail is important in paragraph 1 to establish the notability of the topic. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • A couple of issues here. Regardless of its importance, having it in the lead twice is repetitive. Having this as the second sentence implies that the return to Ohio is the most significant thing about her, but I'm not sure that it is. Finally, as written, the first paragraph presupposes knowledge that the reader may not have - "returned to Ohio" implies that the reader knows that Solomon was from Ohio, but this is the first mention of Ohio. I would suggest swapping it for a summary of her activities - "she was known for her efforts to preserve Wyandot culture through X and Y".
        • I looked at MOS:FIRSTBIO, and as written, it would seem difficult to follow without repeating information further in the lead. I'm not sure about the third point. Of course, the sources don't discuss her return to Ohio in detail, but they all recognize it as context for her babysitting and cultural promotion, because it meant she did them in an area were there were few to no Wyandots. I propose something like: "The Indian Removal Act forced the Wyandots to move from Ohio to Kansas, though Solomon later returned to Ohio and began babysitting children and promoting Wyandot culture". Please suggest an alternative if you disagree. Another option is to remove this part and have a lead with only two paragraphs. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Solomon helped her family recover energy" using "energy" this way feels somewhat informal and unclear. I see that this was just changed today, but recuperated is better imo (although yes, it would be better with the context that Dudley has mentioned)
  • "had a few more children" "a few" is also informal
  • "She sought to protect..." when?
    • I can't really date this. It was continuous, and presumably after her husband and children died. I think both are implied, though. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a bit jarring as-is. Having some context, such as how she tried protect it, and from what, might help the flow.
  • "[Animals] were stolen from her" when? And also, is this significant enough that it needs to be in the lead?
  • When did she marry the second guy
  • I know the limited use of Margaret is because of her husband, but it's a bit jarring and I think it could be written around
  • "Throughout the village, she garnered the nickname" could be trimmed to "Villagers began calling her" or "Her village nicknamed her" or similar.
  • "Solomon became weaker in her final years" - "weaker" doesn't tell the reader much about what's actually happening, and it's pretty typical that people don't get stronger in old age. Do we know what was wrong with her?
Early life
Wyandot removal
  • "Treaty commissioners" - link? or if we don't have an article, perhaps briefly explain their function? it's not a title that's obvious from context
  • "their proposed land tracts" proposed by the government or by who?
  • I cannot find where Little p. 87 mentions Solomon at all
  • Split the paragraph at "Around 664 Wyandots..."; this is a new topic and should be a separate para
  • Harassed how?
  • "a territorial dispute" with who?
  • "began an apple tree orchard" - "planted" rather than began maybe?
  • "Solomon had a few more children" informal. Also, split the para here, since we have a clear topical split between their agricultural activities and her children
  • I might revise the sentence about her eight children to account for her having at least three in Ohio that we've already mentioned
    • So something like: "Throughout her life, she had three boys and five girls, at least three of whom in Ohio, though all of her children died young". I'm not sure how to present it though (mainly to make it clear that it is being repeated), do you have a suggestion? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. Actually, come to consider, I'd just mildly reword and leave out the Ohio thing. "Solomon had more children in Kansas. She is known to have had three boys and five girls throughout her life, all of whom died young." I think "more children" and "known to have had" will cue the reader enough to remember the Ohio set
  • Ref says the children "died quite young", not that they didn't live past adolescence. For all we know, they all died by the age of 5, which would make the "adolescence" statement technically true but misleading
  • It feels weird that we're only linking Indian removal this far into the article
  • "threatened the legal status of Wyandots and devalued the cemetery" in what way
  • "so she continuously tried to prove its importance" to whom and by doing what
    • Responding to this, the one above, and the one about the lead. Labelle briefly states that Solomon was an activist for the cemetery, as described, but only gives the example of the letter she signed in Ohio. She doesn't give any more context to Solomon's activism, so would it be best to remove this sentence? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it possible to post a quote or maybe email me the pages cited? I can only find a French version and the page numbers are really off; I can't read French so it's difficult to find the actual activism in the text. It'd be easier to give a suggestion if I could see what's there.
        • Here it is, with context: On 31 January 1855, Wendat/Wandat Chiefs made special provisions, through treaty negotiations, for the protection of their sacred burial grounds in Kansas. Upon conclusion, Chiefs Silas Armstrong Sr, George I. Clark, Joel Walker, John Hicks, Tauromee, and Matthew Mudeater signed a treaty with the understanding that the "question of the permanency of the burying ground was settled for all time." Thirty-five years later, Mother Grey Eyes Solomon signed another document, indicating her clear objection to the removal in 1890 of remains from the Kansas Huron Cemetery, the burial ground that held her late husband David Young and several children. This act of protest indicates that the provisions of the 1855 document had not been "settled for all time." Mother Solomon and other Kansas Wendat/Wandat had to continuously prove the importance and legitimacy of their cemetery as their legal status fluctuated in the wake of Indian Removal and forced enfranchisement. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, okay, the page numbering is wildly off in the French version, that's why I wasn't seeing it. Two issues, then. First, farther down, our article says she moved into the Hayman residence and "There, she signed a document...". The quote above does not say she signed the document at the Haymans' residence, only that she signed it in 1890. We have to be really careful about making assumptions not borne out by the text. We can certainly say "that year", but not "there".
            Second, I'm not sure the claim that she, personally, continually tried to prove the cemetery's importance is supported by the current citation. What we have right now is "Mother Solomon and other Kansas Wendat/Wandat had to continuously prove...". To me, that reads as though Labelle is taking all their actions collectively, not saying that Solomon herself was acting continually. Where does Labelle call Solomon an activist for the cemetery? I found an English version by looking at a different database, but I can't find this, and the index doesn't help. Can you quote a bit or give the page number?
  • The detail about of the various thefts feels like it isn't contributing much to the article. I see this is all sourced to a Senate document. It might be helpful to include the context of why she was presenting these complaints to the Senate.
Return to Ohio
  • "Her and John's two-acre land tract on the south side of Tauromee Street was" feels like a case where the detail is getting in the way of the flow. I'd trim and revise this bit to "The two-acre tract of land she owned with John..."
  • "she previously" - "had previously", I think. Also, do we know when she lived in it? Is it the same one from her childhood? (I guess it can't be, since Big Spring isn't in Upper Sandusky as I understand it?)
    • Done. We do know what cabin it was, but only from Marsh. After Solomon married Young, they moved into a log cabin Young had built over the river a few miles northeast of Upper Sandusky. Solomon relocated to that cabin. I managed to add from a newspaper quoted in Labelle that the cabin was located north of the city along the river. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cabin had rafters..." this feels unnecessary
  • should be "had burned down", I think since we're talking about the past of the past here
  • I think I'm confused about locations. Putting this here rather than earlier so it doesn't get lost.
    • As I understand it, Solomon lived in Big Spring Reservation as a child, but then she attended school in Upper Sandusky. They're not terribly close, nearly 25km as the crow flies according to Google Maps. Was it a residential school, or did the whole family relocate again after the 1822 move? Or was the Big Spring Reservation perhaps not located at the linked township? Is it maybe Upper Sandusky Reservation?
      • I believe the Big Spring Township article is the right link. The Cincinatti Enquirer said her family moved north of Carey, which tracks (and which I have added). I also haven't come across the Upper Sandusky Reservation or a second family relocation in the sources. It isn't a fully satisfactory answer, but the students did board at the school and Solomon's siblings attended it too, which I have both added. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it was a residential school, I think that makes sense, in terms of place. However, Big Spring Reservation isn't the same entity as Big Spring Township, and the Township article doesn't mention the reserve, so I still think the link is a bit surprising without context.
    • If it was the Upper Sandusky Reservation, our (admittedly short) article says that was dissolved in 1842, presumably coinciding with the removal of the community. Maybe we should mention that?
    • We keep saying "the village" but what village are we actually talking about? Sandusky was not a village, even at that stage, I don't think?
      • Good point. As above, according to Marsh, Solomon lived in a cabin north of the city, where there was a small settlement, but she often travelled into the city. I added that the cabin was located north of the city along the Sandusky River, based on a newspaper article quoted in Labelle. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Margaret began babysitting" - Solomon, not Margaret
  • Labelle wasn't there - who's she citing?
    • Looking into this, I only have a concern or two. Labelle cites Marvin Jr. about Solomon demonstrating the Wyandot language, and I cannot find that in his book, but she says that it was a certainty. She also does not cite a source for Solomon teaching children. If this is a problem, please let me know. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the relationships between their ancestors and Wyandots" This sentence is incomprehensible to me. Were the ancestors of the Wyandot children not Wyandots?
  • I might provide some context for the Sentinel, as in "a local newspaper", because Hocking has not been mentioned at all in the text and it's quite jarring
  • "claimed" - we usually say claimed when someone's account may be dubious. Do we have a reason to doubt this?
  • Split para at the visit to Kansas; separate topic from her childcare/storytelling
    • Not yet. Is there a better way to address this? That sticks out a lot. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Paragraph splits are not aesthetic in purpose. A paragraph deals with a particular point or idea; when we switch ideas, we start a new paragraph. Since the visit to Kansas has nothing to do with her childcare efforts, it should be a new paragraph.
        • Beyond that, I do think it disrupts the flow. The sentence after it is unrelated, so it would still be a bit of whiplash. Could I move them to the start of the next paragraph, so they do not feel so tacked on? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, no, because visiting her relatives and giving away paintings doesn't have anything to do with restoring the church, which is the focus of the next paragraph. I won't oppose over this but I don't love it.
  • I don't know that her nephew's attendance is a necessary detail
  • Split para between attendance and Solomon's performance
  • The phrasing "at the age of 72" feels like it's unnecessarily emphasizing her age. If you really need to mention her age, I might move it to the previous sentence - "Solomon, now 72, was the only..."
  • Same as in the lead, reporting that she became weaker in her old age feels like padding, given that most people get weaker with age
  • I'm not sure what the extensive quote from Love brings to the table
  • Do we know who the Haymans were to Solomon? Caretakers obviously, but - old friends? New friends? Etc
    • Only from Marsh, who implies that the Haymans had regularly checked up on Solomon, but even then, she doesn't discuss their relationship much. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I might mention this, at least to give some context.
        • Not actioned yet
          • Marsh supports that they visited her at least once: "The neighbors stopped by with food and to see if she needed anything. One day, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Hayman saw that she must not be left alone." But I think I should refrain from citing her, and in just a lone instance, until more reviewers say their opinion. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Death and legacy
  • Not sure we need Lease calling her a noble woman - seems pretty routine to speak well of the dead at their funeral
  • "who sought to mediate between settler and Indigenous groups" sorry, but this is the absolute first we're hearing of this. The article describes her advocating for Wyandot culture and caring for children, but I don't see how that translates to mediating between Indigenous and settlers. Also, this is the first indication that she was nannying for white children also - is there a way to add that context earlier? I was assuming she was working with other Wyandot families.
    • I think Labelle meant this in a cultural sense, so I have revised the sentence. In regard to this and the comment about Solomon teaching children, the article now also states that she "began babysitting children in her settler village", which I hope makes it clearer. I wish I could be more overt, but sources don't explicitly say she was babysitting white children. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know that this is an error per se, but I think you're going to need to add more context before it's going to make sense to a reader. I get what you're saying because I've got access to the source, but without knowing that, it looks like it's saying her work was specifically done with an eye to reconciling settlers with Indigenous people, which I don't think we can say.
  • "An exception to the limited studies" - at no point does the article establish that studies on her have been limited, so this violates the principle of least astonishment.
  • Why is the book not cited? It may be billed as a kid's book, but if it's based on reliable sources and by an archivist, it may be useful, and not using it in an FA seems like a gap
    • The article previously cited Marsh, though two editors on the peer review said she would not pass FAC, based on issues of self-publishing and a lack of independent sources supporting her reliability. If there is a consensus to reinstate Marsh somehow, I would be happy to. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arguably she's a subject-matter expert; I think your comments at the PR make a solid case for it. In addition to what you've already said, Marsh's research collection is held at Bowling Green State University ([2]), and a quick GBooks search shows me that her other work is cited in several other books by reliable publishers.
        • Ok, considering the peer review, could we wait to see what another prose or source reviewer thinks? Dudley, you noted at the peer review your willingness to see advice on this at the FAC. If more reviewers supported Marsh's inclusion, would you be willing to let that happen? Admittedly, I was surprised at how much content I could retain in the article without her, so I don't think there would be too much to add. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would still prefer that it is left out. Even if she is reliable in other works, we cannot know whether she took more liberties when writing a children's book. But I would not withdraw my support if you use it. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unless the book is billed as fiction, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that she "took liberties" just because it was a kids book. Remember, this book is heavily cited by Solomon's other biographers, so we're already reliant on it at one remove. (I'm not insisting that it must be cited, I just think there's a solid case to be made that it could be if it were useful).
  • Not sure March's death and burial is relevant unless she was specifically buried there because of Solomon
  • I would split/reorganize the last paragraph to put the 3 sentences about her artifacts being displayed in a separate paragraph at the end.

With apologies, I think there is quite a bit of work to do before this article is ready for FA. I really don't wish to oppose, but I'm leaning more in that direction than I like right now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these. I have been working away at them and should have replies ready tomorrow. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: replies above. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PMC, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really sorry for letting this go so long. I think it is looking much better but still have some things worth discussing, per my comments above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: thanks again. Some more replies. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Averageuntitleduser, sorry for being a delinquent. There's a few things not yet addressed that I've replied to, but on the whole I'm content to support, with appreciation for your hard work and your patience with me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • The alt text for the infobox image should include her name rather than describing her as "an elderly woman", in line with WP:ALT guidance.
  • File:John Solomon circa 1870.png-Same as the above.
  • File:Mother Solomon 1887.jpg-Same as the above. MSincccc (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • You have changed it to "Solomon helped her family recover energy". This is even more confusing. The first version said that she recuperated, but did not say from what. Now it is her family, not Solomon herself, who needed to recover energy, although you have not said they lost it. You need to say first who suffered from what, and only then go on to their recovery. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Six weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EG

[edit]

I may take a look tomorrow or Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • Para 1: "Her family moved to the Big Spring Reservation in 1822," - Where is this in relation to Owl Creek?
  • Para 1: "Solomon married a Wyandot man in 1833. They had several children, at least two of whom died." - I suggest combining these two sentences because, in my opinion, right now they read choppily.
  • Para 1: "In 1843, the Indian Removal Act forced the Wyandots to move to Kansas, and many died of illness." - Many of the family members?
  • Para 2: "relocated around Upper Sandusky, Ohio" I suggest changing this to "relocated to around Upper Sandusky, Ohio"; otherwise it sounds like the family was already near Upper Sandusky, Ohio, and moved to some other place near Upper Sandusky.
  • Para 2: "Many attendees admired her stage presence. Solomon died in 1890." - These two sentences seem quite choppy. I would suggest combining them, either with each other or with other sentences.
  • Para 2: "She was a popular local figure" - I'd elaborate a bit on this.
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and education
  • Para 1: "She was the eldest of four siblings and two half-siblings" - Four full siblings, so six total siblings? Half-siblings technically count as siblings, as well.
  • Para 1: "Solomon's given name was of Christian origin" - Out of curiosity, was "Grey Eyes" not part of the given name, middle name, or surname?
  • Para 2: "When Solomon was four, Squire brought her to the Olentangy Indian Caverns. She was too afraid to explore them, but understood the importance of the site and learned that generations of Wyandots held councils or hid from enemies in the caves." - As written, this is a little bit abrupt - you give an example of Squire teaching indigenous knowledge to Solomon, and then move on to discussing what Solomon and her family did. I would suggest adding "For example" to before "when Solomon was four".
  • Para 2: "Her uncle, Chief Warpole, taught her the origin of their family name: her part-British paternal grandfather was adopted into the Wyandots and was named "Grey Eyes Man". Solomon once gathered with other children to hear Warpole describe the origins of the Wyandots in Canada and their relocations to Michilimackinac, Detroit, and Upper Sandusky." - Again, I'd preface this by saying that these are examples, so something like this: "For example, her uncle, Chief Warpole, taught her the origin of their family name: her part-British paternal grandfather was adopted into the Wyandots and was named "Grey Eyes Man". Another time, Solomon gathered with other children..."
  • Para 3: "Students boarded at the school, and she later attended with her siblings" - This article says that she was among the first students to be enrolled; technically, her siblings would have attended with her, not the other way around (which implies she joined after her siblings).
  • Para 3: "Solomon began attending the nearby Wyandot Mission Church as a child" - At the same time as she was in the mission school?
  • Para 4: "Solomon married David Young, a Wyandot man who had adopted a Christian name after becoming a Methodist preacher. They were married in the mission church on February 4, 1833, by the priest Thomas Simms" - I suggest finding some way to reword the sentences, so you don't repeat the fact that they were married in consecutive sentences (which in turn makes it sound a little unwieldy). Also, is it relevant to mention the name of the priest who married them?
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I was really busy last week.
Wyandot removal to Kansas:
  • Para 1: Would it be feasible to condense this? As far as I can tell, it isn't related to Mother Solomon herself and is only tangentially related to Squire (who's only mentioned in the last two sentences). I'm concerned that someone might see this as a WP:COATRACK addition, especially seeing as how the Indian Removal Act has its own article.
  • Makes sense: I used a source unrelated to Solomon to include a bit more background about the act. I still stand by that, but I think the Summundewat detail isn't too important, so I removed it. I also combined the first two sentences. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paras 1, 3: "25,000 acres" - I'd either use Template:Convert or provide a manual conversion for at least the first mention of this.
  • Para 4: "The two settled in a small house built around December 1843 then" - I'm nitpicking at this point, but there should be a comma after "1843", as it's setting off a new clause.
  • Para 5: "She had only three living daughters by 1851" - A few more nitpicky questions. Does this mean that the only living children she had at that point were daughters, or was the third son alive at that point too? Also, does this mean that there were other daughters who were born beforehand, but then died?
  • Clarified. The first case was intended. But I now realize that only Marsh supported "three living daughters", so I've broadened it to "living children". That should be the last picky detail left over from her. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 6: " worth 295$" - Usually the dollar sign is placed before the number.
  • Just curious, after Young's death, did the sources say how Mother Solomon received income (e.g. did she farm)?
Return to Ohio:
  • Para 1: "The two-acre land tract" - I'd put a conversion here too.
  • Para 2: "John worked as a tailor until his death on December 14, 1876." - This would be a trivial detail, but do the sources say how he died?
  • Para 3: "She gave away paintings of the Wyandot chiefs Mononcue and Between-the-Logs in 1883, and allowed them to be reproduced." - Per the essay WP:CINS, I would recommend removing the comma after "1883", as the clause after it is not a complete sentence.
  • Done.
  • Para 3: "On September 21, 1889, the Central Ohio Conference held a rededication ceremony.[40][41] An estimated 3,000 people attended.[42]" - I would suggest combining these sentences.
  • Para 4: It seems like this entire paragraph is about the rededication ceremony. I'm not sure if this should be combined with the previous paragraph, since it would make the third paragraph quite long, but I'd consider it. Additionally (and not related to the FAC), it's interesting that a musical performance like this would receive so much news coverage for the time.
Death and legacy:
  • Para 1: "Mr. and Mrs. Jacob Hayman" - Who are they?
  • Para 1: "She died on August 18, 1890. Her funeral was held at the Wyandot Mission Church two days later." - I suggest combining these.
  • Para 4: "The McCutchen Overland Inn Museum displayed her saddle in the Anderson General Store in May 2021." - Since this is unrelated to the two sentences preceding it, I would suggest starting this sentence with a conjunction like "in addition".
That's it for me. Sorry for the delay in my comments. Overall, this looks pretty good; I couldn't find much to nitpick, relatively speaking. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Averageuntitleduser, my bad. I forgot to ping you. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Great review, and replies above. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

As always, these are suggestions not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.

  • In what way was she a cultural activist? I see some sentences about promoting Wyandot culture and language in her village and gatherings, but that seems an (understandable) misunderstanding of the common definition of cultural activism.
    • Good point, and I'm not sure where I stand on it. I think there are enough actions and intent/context to satisfy a looser understanding of "activist". I do think another term could be more accurate, but I haven't found one that is widely used. Or, we could try something like: "was a Wyandot nanny known for..." What do you think? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was too afraid to explore them, but understood the importance of the site and learned that generations of Wyandots held councils or hid from enemies in the caves." this sentence treads uncomfortably close to WP:CLOP on a couple of occasions, and the source's "importance of visiting these historic places" is misrepresented as "importance of the site". A good way to resolve these issues is by knowing that you don't need to give every detail in the source—do we really need to know that she said several decades later that she was too afraid to explore, for example? Similarly for "He emphasized to his audience the importance of maintaining Wyandot culture" on the CLOP front.
  • "befriended each of its pastors"; source says "becoming acquainted with all the missionaries", so I think both "befriended" and "pastors" are overselling it a bit. Probably best cut.
  • Is it possible to have a map showing the movement of the Wyandot, either custom or on Commons?
  • Kelly 2024 appears to be a PhD thesis. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it's best if such sources are only used if they "have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties". Is any of that correct here?
    • Little is a thesis too, though I think hers is being turned into a book. The theses aren't cited elsewhere, but they were supervised by Labelle and an oral defense is a requirement in the program, attended by an external and university examiner. I think that satisfies the second point and partially the third one. I tried to defer to other sources wherever possible, and the remaining citations to them are often repeating Marsh's book. I would be willing to cut back if needed, though. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Labelle states that she worked tirelessly every day in her childcare" why does this sentence in particular need attribution? See the third example pair of WP:INTEXT.
  • "the chiefs Mononcue and Between-the-Logs" Wyandots?
  • Marvin Jr. mentions that "a small collection was taken up on her behalf" following her song at the rededication ceremony. Could this be mentioned?
  • "Labelle refers to the coverage as a "momentary acknowledgement of [Wyandot] resilience in Ohio", but also notes that many stories falsely called Solomon "the last of the Wyandots". She views this as an attempt at erasing the Wyandots from Ohio, bolstered by the prominent misconception of Native Americans as a vanishing people." this seems less relevant to Solomon's biography and more an invocation of Labelle's general theme of "cultural healing, resistance, and resilience". Would suggest combining and trimming these two sentences.

Nice article, I look forward to supporting after you respond to the above. In case you're interested, I also have an open FAC at the moment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Replies above. This was very helpful! I like taking requests, so I'll see if I have enough time this week to review yours. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AirshipJungleman29:, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, happy with the responses. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Are late 20th century newspapers reliable sources for Native Americans? I am not well-versed with US history but my sense is that one needs to be doubly critical of contemporary sourcing in these matters. For example, "Western Christian Advocate" might be a reliable source. Or it might be overselling the role of the missionary, given that it was a church-sponsored newspaper. Which is it? Have the Little, Tarisa Dawn and Kelly, Mckelvey theses gained significant influence in the field? From what I know that's a key requirement for using theses as sources.

Thanks, Jo-Jo. I think the article uses those old newspapers critically. They are only cited for ordinary biographical information, background about the re-dedication ceremony, or attributed descriptions of her singing and storytelling. Certainly, that article from the Western Christian Advocate praises the Methodist mission heavily, but it is used sparingly and for information about Solomon, so I don't think there's an issue. For the theses, WP:SCHOLARSHIP advises they should be "cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties." I replied to another reviewer about this, so I'll paste what I said: "Little is a thesis too, though I think hers is being turned into a book. The theses aren't cited elsewhere, but they were supervised by Labelle and an oral defense is a requirement in the program, attended by an external and university examiner. I think that satisfies the second point and partially the third one. I tried to defer to other sources wherever possible, and the remaining citations to them are often repeating Marsh's book. I would be willing to cut back if needed, though." I think the theses are among the best sources for the article. But what do you think? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's being turned into a book that would be fine. Without it ... I kinda suspect that it might not qualify as a "high-quality reliable source" then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Labelle also says that Little and Kelly gave feedback for her book, so I'm inclined to view the material about Solomon in their theses as an extension of her work. I'm hesitant to remove them, but if you think I should, then OK. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if anyone else agrees or disagrees. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that per WP:THESIS, the Kelly and Little PhD theses are reliable but should be used carefully. Being PhD theses rather than masters' theses, they've been vetted more carefully and thus, don't need to have significant scholarly influence in order to be reliable. This "scholarly influence" requirement only applies to masters' theses from what I understand. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS suggests that some PhD theses will be reliable sources, depending on whether they have "through a process of academic peer reviewing" and how rigorous it was. However, for FAC sources also need to be "high quality". This doesn't necessarily rule out PhD theses: my view is that it depends - still - on the thesis having been rigorously peer reviewed, and also what it is being used to cover and the extent to which they "have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties." Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothig inherently wrong with PhD theses, although if they are subsequently written up that would become preferred source (while also making the theses itself more usable in the process). I use them all the time... However, that theses comprise 40% of the entire sources used may give them undue weight (albeit I appreciate that the source material maybe limited). Remember you can (should!) mine principle texts for other sources; for example, pp. 181–186 of Labelle has potentially valuable bibliographic info.
Having said that, your restraint in using them is a further plus point.
On a lighter note, this is a great article on a—per WP:BIAS—understudied, important topic. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, why do combine shortened footnotes (Kelly, Labelle ect) with full length citations (e.g. nos 39, 52, 53)? (Not unconnected to this, the bibliography is about half full.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo. Are you able to make a decision, one way or another? If not, what is missing? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they are used very carefully and the PhDs in question underwent rigorous review, then it might pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Averageuntitleduser. This means that it over to you to summarise how controversial - or not - the statements in the article relying on these are, and to give Jo-Jo some idea to what extent they meet the requirements set out under "Dissertations" in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For Little's claim about Squire encouraging family visits, Marsh describes in detail two Indigenous sites he brought Solomon to, as well as a family visit to the Green Corn Feast. And on Solomon's siblings attending the school, Labelle notes that her brother was listed in an 1825 school roll, and since Squire was the main supporter of the school, it seems reasonable. The claim that Solomon was improving her English spelling and reading is from the same school roll.
For Kelly, "Squire sought to teach Indigenous knowledge to Solomon" is straightforward context for why he took Solomon to Indigenous sites, which another reviewer requested. The other Kelly citations (Mrs. Parker, the garden, the death of Solomon's children) trace back to Marsh, who is the only source to describe them. But I'm inclined to think it's fairly ordinary information. The Mrs. Parker anecdote may sound oddly specific, but she and her family are recurring characters in the book.
I admit that it adds up to a decent number of citations and that some of it is unique information. To add onto Fortuna, I think the the reputations of the figures involved wouldn't blow these concerns out of the water, but they certainly aren't poor. I'd consider the University of Saskatchewan large and well-known. Notably, five of Kelly's PhD committee members specialize in Native American or Indigenous Canadian history; they either teach in those subjects, publish a lot about them, or both. Though, Little's committee seems more standard in comparison; only two members might fit that. Well, I'm interested to hear what you think, Jo-Jo! Sorry to throw so much information at you. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this last paragraph has me convinced on both PhDs. I think they work, unless someone has additional concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo-Jo for doing the hard yards on sorting that out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ha'pennorth: Yes, but our demands must be reasonable and we should be mindful to avoid WP:CREEP. How, for instance, is an editor to guarantee the PhDs in question underwent rigorous review; the answer, of course, is that they cannot, without actually researching each institution's doctoral program. I doubt we expect that. So we have to judge, as far as we can which is not very far, on reputations: of the institution, the supervisors, the examiners and of course that of the scholar themself. Subsequent usage of the thesis in the scholarship is a useful metric for guesstimating the extent to which the thesis has become accepted in the field and the degree of its impact on the broader scholarship. It's times like this I miss SlimVirgin, eh Gerda? More than normal, I mean. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fortuna. I had previously gone through Labelle's bibliography but I looked more closely this time. There are a few mentions in two books, but nothing which could be added or could replace the theses. It did lead me to search on the Wyandotte Nation's website, though, and find an article article from their tribal newspaper which let me clarify a sentence. But beyond that, I can attest to scouring Marsh's bibliography, Newspapers.com, Internet Archive, Google Books and other databases, which means the material from the theses is what's leftover. For your point about short and long footnotes, I think it is a common format. It might not be as immediately helpful here becaue only Labelle is used for many pages, but it also helps identify the sources with maybe more rigorous publishers and peer-review. You are right that a few sources should go there, which should be fixed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Marsh - maybe show the publisher location (for the sake of consistency)? It's Upper Sandusky, Ohio
  • "and had several children with him, at least two of whom died." I assume they all died. I suspect that you haven't fully expressed what you are trying to say here.
What I am getting at is that they will all be dead by now. "some of whom died" does not, IMO, convey any useful information. I am sure that is not what you are trying to communicate. I would guess that it is something like 'at last two of whom died young', or 'at last two of whom died before they reached the age of two', or 'at last two of whom had died by 1843' or whatever.
That's fair, I've edited it. Does it look better? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. Thanks, Gog! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2025 (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/Mother_Solomon/archive1&oldid=1296124560"