I've spent some time taking this to a polished state, and I believe it's in FA-shape. I'd like comments and suggestions on how I can make it even better. (Two sources are heavily referenced, since there's a sad lack of books available – more info in the article.) Thanks in advance! – Scartol · Talk 02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a very strong article. My few comments are:

Please add ((persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!)) along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]

 Done – Scartol · Talk 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the photograph say 1868 but 1880 on the image page?

Hmm. The LOC page indicates no date is included on the caption card. PBS gives a date of c. 1880, so I'll use that on the page itself. – Scartol · Talk 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"in the midst of slavery's tumult" is a strange phrase, can you reword?

 Done I meant to fix that earlier and it must have slipped my mind. Fixed. – Scartol · Talk 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map and picture of Susan B. Anthony have no source specified.

 Done The user who created the map is AWOL, so there's no way for us to ever discover its source. I really prefer the color map used earlier, but if a sourced file is needed, I suppose we can use the b/w red-county one I've switched it to. Insofar as they're licensed as free content, is the source really urgent? This is not a rhetorical question; I'm not well-versed on image legality issues. – Scartol · Talk 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images should have sources, if it is obvious that this image is created by the uploader, you could modify the image page to reflect that. There seems to be another image you could use: Image:Map of USA highlighting Maryland.png. What would be really great, also given qp's comment below, would be a map showing the area where she actually lived, i.e. the North-Eastern United States. But I'm afraid I can't find one of those on commons. DrKiernan 09:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's it – I'm going to make one this evening. I'm going to try my hand at cartography. Watch out, world! Here I come with my pastel paint buckets and standardized fonts. – Scartol · Talk 18:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite "Because the specifics of her route were used by other fugitive slaves"?

 Done – Scartol · Talk 15:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably she and John Tubman lived separately after their marriage? Perhaps you could mention this? Could you be more specific about the marriages? They all seem to have committed bigamy quite happily, presumably marriages were common law and not official ones.

Will address this soon. – Scartol · Talk 15:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not really possible to address it. I've more or less given all the information that's available – which is not much. Both Clinton and Larson explain that there's very little data available, and (probably in light of their breakup years later), Tubman didn't say much about the marriage to Bradford. Alas. – Scartol · Talk 19:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tag on the picture of David Hunter should be updated. DrKiernan 09:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for your kind feedback and attention to detail. – Scartol · Talk 15:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just gave it a readthrough. Looks great. Just some general comments:

• Watch out for overlinking, specifically linking the same statement twice in a short space. The lead, for example, links the Underground Railroad twice. It may be OK to link a topic twice, for example if the topic appears in two very separate parts of the narrative, however in general linking it the first time is sufficient.

• Yeah, I think I did okay with this in general, and forgot I had added it earlier in the lead. Thanks for the reminder. – Scartol · Talk 19:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also watch out for over citing. For example, where the information is UNCONTROVERSIAL, and easily referenced to, for example, several different pages in the same book, it is OK to condense these to a single reference, for example "Larson, pp 213, 264" or something like that, and simply cite at the end of the paragraph. If it comes from two different sources, then it is probably OK to cite both references at the end of the paragraph. The only time you should really cite after each sentance is: 1) Direct quotes 2) controversial, surpising, or jarring facts, and 3) statistics and data. Most of this article contains what I would call uncontroversial information, and so footnoting at the end of the paragraph is sufficient. You can improve readability and not reduce verifiability by moving some of these references to the end of the paragraphs.

• In the past I've been chided for not having enough citations (see example above), so I tend to overdo it rather than take a risk in underciting. – Scartol · Talk 19:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you should understand there is a difference between people commenting "Statements X, Y , and Z need citation" and "This article seems undercited". The former is actionable, the latter is not. Articles don't need citing, facts do. Citing at the end of a paragraph is still fairly unambiguous as a properly crafted paragraph should contain a single thesis, and what you are citing is that thesis and its supporting details. I have always been under the opinion that unless a specific statement is challengable (as defined as quotes, cited opinion, statistics/data, or controversial/jarring/surprising statements) then it is still unambiguous to cite at the end of a paragraph. If someone asks for more cites, you are well within your rights to request that they tell you which statements they think needs citing. I would agree that an overcited article is preferable to an undercited article, however BOTH are inferior, in my opinion, to a properly cited article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I see what you mean. I hope you won't be offended if – rather than go through and redo all the citations in HT – I put it into practice in future work. – Scartol · Talk 18:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• HT? What's that? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• H as in Harriet. – Scartol · Talk 11:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The image "scars on a whipped slave" does not seem to directly relate to the article. It is an excellent picture, but I question its purpose here. Since this is not a picture of Ms. Tubman herself, I wonder why it is in the article.

• I agree that it's not directly related, but given the barbarity of slavery and its effects on young people, I think the image is useful in depicting the conditions from which she escaped, and to illustrate the dangers she returned to – voluntarily – again and again. – Scartol · Talk 19:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The infobox "african american topics" Could probably find a better place. Could it be moved to the top of the page, or perhaps is there a horizontal version to be placed at the bottom?

• Yeah, I used the footer instead. Good call, thanks. – Scartol · Talk 19:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all small issues. This seems VERY close to FA standard now, and just needs a little spit-polish to make it there. Good job, and I look forward to seeing this at FAC in the near future! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. I do hope to move it along quickly. Cheers! – Scartol · Talk 19:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, I noticed that several people have commented on the status of certain maps in this article. I would agree that maps could help, and that the current maps need work. Please consider contacting User:Kmusser, who is unequivocally the best cartographer (at least, in my humble opinion) here at Wikipedia. He has done several maps for articles I have worked on (see infobox at Plymouth Colony for one example). You may want to consider contacting him at his talk page. He is very good, and usually very fast. I can give no better recommendation than him.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it may even be easy enough for me to make one of my own, using the USA maps available. – Scartol · Talk 18:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest that the lead be shortened to concentrate on what she is noted for: perhaps dropping things like the abortive marriage to Tubman, and Nelson Davis and Gertie, and four different jobs in the army, and the circumstantial matter from "Aided by the Underground Railroad, traveling by night and in extreme secrecy, Tubman (or "Moses", as she was called) followed the North Star and – in her own words – "never lost a passenger". Rewards were posted for her capture, but historians disagree on their actual amount; estimates range from US$12,000 to US$40,000" (a brief mention of rescues and rewards would do here, I think). I would drop "70" and postpone the discussion of historical evidence until later in the article.

•  Done – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very effective lead now, I think. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• On the other hand, I'd add a phrase of explanation for Underground Railroad and a line of context to indicate why she would be free in one state and not another.

•  Done – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all non-Americans will take the social and historical context for granted. Could something be said to explain the nature of slavery at this time? In particular, about the difference between a slave and a freed slave. Presumably, Tubman's work did not come out of the blue. On the one hand there were calls for the emancipation of slaves (and the more southern states were being pressured by the northern ones); also she would have seen freed slaves in her own community, a phenomenon that must have put pressure on the status quo. The article addresses this as the article progresses, but perhaps something needs to be said earlier on.

• It's possible that I'm taking historical context for granted, being a US resident. But I'm not quite clear on what needs to be clarified. Tubman's work didn't come out of the blue in the sense that there were abolitionists, but insofar as their work revolved mostly around supporting and maintaining the Underground Railroad, I figured that explanation was sufficient.

• I don't know how severely the southern states were being pressured by the northern ones – the Fugitive Slave Law, at least, is an example of the reverse. When the Civil War started, Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery, and many Union officials wanted to work out a compromise.

Maybe not by governments, which are always the last to act. But the movement to abolish slavery was powerful, so I imagine that the slaves in Maryland would have been fully aware of it. Lincoln may not have intended to free the slaves, but the tipping point had been reached, and like a smart politician he surfed the big wave. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't really have much evidence of how they came into contact with it, and I'd hate to speculate. Larson does a bit of this (some parts of the book are pretty long tangents), but I don't know how helpful such a thing would be here. – Scartol · Talk 02:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely Tubman saw free black people in Maryland, but they were born free, manumitted or purchased by family members. Escapees always fled, and her biographies are very clear that she was breaking new ground by going back.

However, I imagine that the tendency, noted in the article, for slaves to be freed at a certain age was a response to the influence of the emancipation campaigns and a foreshadowing of the emancipation. I imagine that Maryland's closeness to Pennsylvania might have been significant too.qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I should add a sentence or two on the general lay of the land, in terms of which states did and did not allow slavery? Or something like that? – Scartol · Talk 18:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that seems so basic to an American. But this subject is surprisingly little studied in Britain, and it's probably the same elsewhere. I admit that I'm way out of my comfort zone in trying to make useful comments. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep working at it. I actually heard a very interesting talk several years back by a fellow who had written a book about British abolitionists entitled Bury the Chains. – Scartol · Talk 02:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Constantly wading waist-high into cold water, she fell ill with measles and was sent back home. This sentence makes it seem to me as if the two clauses are somehow connected.

• They are. She got ill from her constant slogging through the water, especially in the autumn and winter. – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they aren't. You catch measles from a virus. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I was misled by my failure to read more closely into the sources and the measles article. Curse me! Apparently I summarized it wrong, and have now reworded it correctly. – Scartol · Talk 02:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The map of Maryland with Dorchester marked is not particularly clear, in my opinion. By not showing neighbouring states it seems to hang in space, as if Maryland has a much longer southern coastline. It is surely crucial to mark the Mason-Dixon line, at least. And Delaware and Pennsylvania.

• Yes. I'm going to make such a map this evening. – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You versatile chap. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Her owner said she was "not worth a sixpence" and returned her to Brodess, who tried unsuccessfully to sell her. I thought Brodess owned her anyway.

• Yes, but she had been hired out. I've tried to make this more clear. – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed this is what was meant. Clear now. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why were the slaveowners willing to free Tubman's father but not her mother? What was the difference? Was it, as you say in the next paragraph, that the children's status depended on the mother's status and not the father's?

• There's some speculation on this. I thought about including the differing opinions from Clinton and Larson, but I worry about including too much of that sort of thing (I already feel like the article's heavy with it), and didn't think it would add too much here. – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, her father had been owned by a different family – one, presumably, more willing to carry out its patriarch's last requests. – Scartol · Talk 18:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be it. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Although Tubman's husband is mentioned later, there is no mention of him when she escapes from Maryland. From a storytelling point of view, the omission struck me.

• Actually, there is: At the end of the first paragraph the sentence appears: "Tubman refused to wait for the Brodess family to decide her fate, despite her husband's efforts to dissuade her." – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that! My fault and apologies. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Because the specifics of her route were used by other fugitive slaves, Tubman did not speak about them; particulars of her journey remain shrouded in secret. Did not speak of them at the time; that makes sense. But later, when her story was taken down, surely it would have been safe to speak of the route?

• Perhaps, but all of the biographies leave it as a mystery. My guess is that Bradford wasn't interested in (and/or didn't have the training in oral history to ask about) these routes, and later investigations haven't yielded much. – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps changing the semicolon to a full stop would remove the implied connection. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Scartol · Talk 02:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article says that it was unusual for a slave to marry a free man, but later it says that her sister Kessiah did the same. How unusual?

• A good point, and one I hadn't picked up on. I still think it was an anomaly. Maybe Harriet inspired her? – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm sensing, with this and the freeing of the father (and later of the mother), and the ability of Harriet's parents to resist a sale of their child, and the self-hiring-out of slaves, and the buying of freedoms, and the existence of the underground railroad, is that the situation was becoming complex as the old certainties of the slave system were undermined in this death-throe period of slavery. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly – but I think they were becoming more complex even before she was born. The contradictions of a "land of the free" which was founded by slave owners began to unravel as soon as the Declaration was signed, methinks. – Scartol · Talk 02:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a phrase of explanation is needed about the Fugitive Slave Law.

•  Done Agreed. Added. – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine.qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where did Douglass live?

• It's not clear. Larson speaks of Tubman taking a route "out of Philadelphia to New York City, then on to Albany and Rochester, New York". Douglass' book is not much clearer (he moved around a bit; even Frederick Douglass isn't very specific about where he lived when. – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Her journeys into the heart of slaveholding states put her at tremendous risk. Did she do this in other states than Maryland? (I know Delaware was a slave-owning state, but not such a dangerous one at this time, I would say.)

•  Done True. I suppose the plural is superfluous. Fixed. – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• She also carried a handgun, and her willingness to use it was legendary. What does legendary mean in this context? At the time, or later? Does it mean merely "famous" or "semi-mythical"?

• I meant to indicate that everyone knew she was willing to use it. I've reworded this. – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• During one voyage with twenty-five fugitive slaves. If she rescued, as stated earlier, some seventy slaves in thirteen expeditions, then this expedition included over a third of all she rescued. I noticed here that you did not come back to the scholarly issue of numbers referred to in the lead. Given that Conrad, reffed for this incident, is an early source, perhaps he has been challenged by later biographers? Kate's note on the talk page is worth taking seriously on this, I suspect (presumably this is Kate Larsen, author of one of the biographies).

• Yes, she is the same Larson, and I agree that Conrad may have used flexible math. Since the point of the story isn't about how many were in the group, I've taken out the specific number. – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That solves it.qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it a little hard to believe that Tubman would threaten to kill anyone once they were over the border into the free states, even if they intended to continue to Canada; but that's the impression this anecdote gave me, as worded.

• That's also the impression Conrad and Clinton give; the fear was that they might give out information vital to keeping other people hidden and free. (Her exact words, according to Conrad, were: "Dead n[egroes] don't tell no tales.") – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Tubman might have been exaggerating here. I would at least add a "Tubman remembered", or something here, to frame the assertion. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay. Done. – Scartol · Talk 02:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the discussion of rewards slightly superfluous: does the reader require this? Perhaps the reader could simply be told that rewards were offered, including one for US$12,000.

• Given the wild numbers which circulate in the children's books, and the amount of time Larson spends debunking it, I do think it's relevant. (The numbers for this and the record of how many slaves she helped liberate were changed even as I worked on the article.) – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you. But if Larsen has debunked the earlier stories, then they have been superseded.qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even she admits that it's hard to know for sure. I like it as is. – Scartol · Talk 02:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• tending to her family, Does this mean her parents etc., or children of her own?

• Parents, etc. I changed it to "relatives", which is hopefully more clear. – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. qp10qp 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this an excellent article by diligent colleague Scartol. It avoids most of the pitfalls of biography based on oral retellings and, once it gets going, is fluently and clearly written in accessible encyclopedic prose. Once some work is done on the lead, this will make a worthy candidate for featured status, in my opinion.qp10qp 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Qp. I appreciate your support. (As for the lead: Once again I messed up by caring too much about what other people had written before me. I always feel weird coming through with the sledgehammer, so I try to leave intact some of the original wording. But every time it seems it gets changed eventually anyway!) – Scartol · Talk 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]