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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:18, 18 July 2008 [1].

---

William Wilberforce[edit]

Nominator(s): Slp1 (talk)

Agendum had hoped to get the William Wilberforce article to featured article status as part of the bicentennial celebrations for the abolition of the British slave trade in 2007. Well, it took a bit longer than anticipated but here we are, thanks to the contributions of many editors, including the useful review for the successful Good Article nomination, [2], very helpful peer reviews from Ealdgyth and qp10qp,[3] and Elcobbola who kindly checked the images. We look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions for further improvement, and hope that we will be able to celebrate the 201st anniversary in style!! Slp1 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His 250th birthday would be as good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it would, though I sincerely hope this process will be over well before August 2009!--Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Current ref 105 the "Parliamentary History of england from the earliest period to the year 1803" is lacking a last access date. I'd really rather see this listed as a book bibliographical entry, honestly, rather than the link to google books which it is now.
• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.

Otherwise sources look good, links all check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've unmixed the templates (you learn something new everyday, I guess!) and reworked ref 105. It was actually a book citation all the time, but just with very few of the fields: no author per se, no isbn etc, only a title, a printer, print date and volume number. Hopefully what I have done is OK, but perhaps there are other suggestions for how to deal with such a source? Slp1 (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good compromise to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "seven miles " – provide conversions to metric units
• "Times, 2005-03-25, Retrieved on 27 November 2007" – link the dates here if dates are to be linked in the article
• "pp. 16-7" – en dash

Gary King (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gary. I've sorted the page no and metric conversion. I'm not sure how to link the date, but I guess someone there knows...? Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, in various stages by various people. Thanks.Slp1 (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very minor comment: I find the prose in the intro a bit confusing, especially "and became the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812) and a close friend of Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger". What is this trying to say? Was he a friend of Pitt before becoming a Member? Or did he "become a member and a friend"? Perhaps this could be improved. I also feel the first paragraph is a bit dense. Perhaps it could be split into a short introduction sentence, similar to the current one, and then a second para? Maury (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maury, for your comments. I have been trying to figure out a way of addressing them, but I think I need more information, partly because I am having trouble understanding the problem. Perhaps I can start by answering your questions: Yes, WW was a friend of Pitt's before becoming an MP, and yes, he became a closer friend after becoming an MP. I am worried about dividing the first paragraph into two because the Lead is supposed 3-4 paragraphs long, and it already has 4 paragraphs.--Slp1 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we're simply trying to say to much in what is, after all, only an introduction. How about deleting mention of William Pitt at this stage (it's all there in the article, anyway)? That's what I'll do – if anyone has any better idea, please change it. Thanks for bringing it up, Maury. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for the tardiness) I think Agendum nailed it. In retrospect I don't think it's his friendship with Pitt that makes him historically important, so perhaps simply removing that one item is best. Maury (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I think this article is very good - it was quite interesting to read. I have no doubt that my concerns can be easily addressed: — Awadewit 23:29, July 4, 2008 — continues after insertion below

• The lead gives an excellent example of the problems with infoboxes - Wilberforce had a conversion experience. Labeling him as simply "Anglican" does not really do justice to his religious convictions. I would suggestion removing these kinds of fields from the infobox, if not the entire infobox.

I have added "Evangelical" to Anglican in the infobox. I tend to agree about the dangers of infoboxes, and the boxes they out people in. If we are to have an infobox, then I think his religion is important; he was keen Anglican for sure, but not of the standard variety for his time, it is true, so hopefully, Evangelical Anglican will be an accurate summary.--Slp1 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad we can't do something like "Anglican -> Evangelical Anglican" to indicate his conversion. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• His grandfather William (1690–1776) had made the family fortune through the Baltic trade - what kind of Baltic trade?

You would not believe the number of sources that say that they got their money from the Baltic Trade, without explaining what it means. But you are right, it is needed. Some research is needed here. --Slp1 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Baltic trade was principally the importing of timber for shipbuilding, together with flax and hemp. I can't find my original reference for that, but I've just found [4] (scroll down to the para starting "After the mid-17th century". Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trade also involved the importation of wine, grain, and especially Swedish iron ore. Without reearching precise information about Wilberforce's family, I think it's impossible to say to which particular trade the family owed its wealth. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted a friend of mine who happens to be an expert on the history of Hull, and I have just received his reply. He could not be absolutely certain, but says that: "The Baltic Trade.... It also shows details of each and all of their cargoes, as said, for the 1779 season. It should be understood that these convoys were an almost constant flow of trade because what they brought home were in effect, naval supplies, as you said, tar, hemp, timbers of many sizes and sorts. The 1779 convoy was composed of some 40 of sail, it had started out leaving their Elsinore rendezvous with nearly 70 vessels, a massive undertaking. Yet, there were other convoys, and it may be safely assumed that the traffic continued from the time the Baltic thawed out until it froze over again the following autumn/winter. As to Wm. Wilberforce Snr., involvement in this trade, it seems only natural." I don't think we're going to do better than that.

So I think we can say something like "...the Baltic trade of timber and ship-building materials." I'll change it to that and if you wish to improve it, please do so. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done with your research, but with all due respect to your friend, we really can't add these details unless it has been verified that they made their money in timber and ship-building. To be honest I don't think we are going to find a reliable source detailing exactly what the specific trade the family were involved in: even the sons just say "his father was a highly respectable and wealthy merchant of Hull, a town on the German Ocean, which has large commercial connections with the Baltic Sea" and "who continued in the Baltic trade", without more details. I think the best we can do is to give general description of the what it was. --Slp1 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea this was such a difficult issue! Perhaps a footnote explaining what the typical Baltic trades were and then explain that it is unknown what exactly Wilberforce's family was involved in? Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added what the typical imports and exports were as a footnote. Thanks for the suggestion.--Slp1 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wilberforce was described as a sickly and delicate child - Is the passive construction necessary here? Either he was a sickly and delicate child or tell us who described him as such, I think.

Passive not needed, and expanded to include something about his eye problems.--Slp1 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• With his mother struggling to cope, the nine-year-old Wilberforce was sent to a prosperous uncle and aunt who lived in St James' Place, London and in Wimbledon, at that time a village seven miles (11 km) south-west of London. - The aunt and uncle lived in both places? This is slightly confusing.

Yes, they were a two-home family. Have reworked to explain this.--Slp1 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• where he grew extremely fond of his relatives[5] and was influenced towards evangelical Christianity by his aunt Hannah - "influenced towards" is awkward

I've tried to improve this, although I'm still not totally satisfied with the way it reads – but it's certainly better than the original. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the sister of the wealthy Christian merchant John Thornton and a supporter of George Whitefield - Tell the reader who Whitefield is. (Check the rest of the article for this - make sure the reader knows who various historical personages are.)

Done Whitefield. I'll check the article to do the same elsewhere. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk)

• Wilberforce's staunchly Church of England mother and grandfather, alarmed at these nonconformist influences and at his leanings towards evangelicalism - Is it worth explaining to the reader a bit of the historical background here? I know it, so this all makes sense to me, but I wonder if other readers might be confused.

• Madame de Staël described him as the "wittiest man in England"[23] and, according to the Duchess of Devonshire, the Prince of Wales said that he would go anywhere to hear Wilberforce sing - I think the Duchess that should be linked here is Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire.

Done--Slp1 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternatively, Wilberforce's frequent tardiness and disorganisation, as well as his chronic eye problems, may have convinced Pitt that his trusted friend was not ministerial material. - What eye problems? Could this be explained more? This is rather sudden.

I have referred to the problems starting in childhood and also briefly amplified the functional impact here.--Slp1 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Milner accompanied him to England, and on the journey, they read Philip Doddridge's Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul. - Briefly describe Doddridge so that the reader knows he is a Dissenter, etc.

Done. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we change "the" to "a", as Doddridge was dead by this time and no longer "the leading English nonconformist" (that was probably Joseph Priestley)? Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've added bit more about Doddridge as well. Agendum (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The few Evangelicals in politics were exposed to contempt and ridicule - Perhaps an example or two?

DoneSlp1 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The British had become involved in the slave trade during the 16th century, and by 1783 the triangular route that took British-made goods to Africa to buy slaves, transported the enslaved from Africa to the West Indies, and then brought slave-grown produce such as sugar, tobacco, cotton and coffee to Britain, represented about 80 per cent of Great Britain's foreign income. - This sentence is a bit long.

Now split, thanksSlp1 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The movement to abolish the slave trade is generally considered to have begun in the 1780s with the establishment of Quakers' antislavery committees, and their presentation to parliament of the first slave trade petition in 1783 - I'm not entirely sure this is correct. When I was doing research on British antislavery literature, I got the impression that the Quaker antislavery movement began earlier and that it was in the 1780s that it finally garnered support outside the Quaker community. See David Brion Davis's seminal The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, chapter 1, for example. Perhaps this statement just needs to be more precise?

I've changed "movement" to "campaign", hoping that this will address your concern about precision: I believe I was trying to avoid the overuse of the word "campaign" yet again. My understanding is that, yes, the Quakers, among others, were interested in and opposed to the slave trade before the 1780s, but that public attempts to influence parliament etc began with the committees and the 1983 petition. Slp1 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding as well. I think that this change rectifies the problem. "Organized campaign" or somesuch might be even better. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• With their encouragement and help, Ramsay spent three years writing an essay highly critical of slavery in the West Indies, published in 1784. The book was to have an important impact in raising public awareness and interest, and excited the ire of West Indian planters who in the coming years attacked both Ramsay and his ideas in a series of pro-slavery tracts. - Is this Ramsay's An essay on the treatment and conversion of African slaves in the British sugar colonies? Could we mention the title since it is so important? (People like me still read it, by the way.)

Yes, it was, and it is now mentioned by name--Slp1 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In November 1786 he received a letter from Sir Charles Middleton that re-opened interest in the slave trade. - re-opened his interest?

Yup, quite right! done.--Slp1 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Diagram of a slave ship, the Brookes, intended to illustrate the inhumane conditions aboard such vessels - "intended to illustrate" or "illustrating" (note the massive difference in meaning!)?

Yes indeed. Done--Slp1 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• These included the works of former slaves Ottobah Cugoano and Olaudah Equiano, who had published influential books on slavery and the slave trade in 1787 and 1789 respectively. - Might we link to at least Equiano's autobiography, which is now routinely assigned to undergraduates?

Have linked it: I have wracked my brain to try and think of way of including the title more formally, but without success or lots of extra verbiage.Slp1 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long title, too (eighteenth-century titles are really funny, sometimes). Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wilberforce and Clarkson tried unsuccessfully to take advantage of the egalitarian atmosphere of the French Revolution to press for France's abolition of the trade - Do we need to make clear that France did partially abolish slavery in 1793 and 1794? Although this is unrelated to Wilberforce and Clarkson and more of a response the revolution in Haiti, we should be careful not to imply that France did not abolish anything. Of course, Napoleon reestablished slavery later. Don't you love the French Revolution?

Done. I hope it's about the right amount of detail. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is good. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The dream was of an ideal society in which races would mix on equal terms - Are we absolutely sure of this? What I have read of Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect's writings does not suggest that they would support such a vision.

Here's what Hind says: "The Saints were stimulated by Sharp's vision and the settlement of Sierra Leone. The idea of a free colony appealed to them, committed as they were to civilizing African, advancing the cause of abolition and atoning for past wrongs committed by Britain against the African race. Sierra Leone could become a lasting symbol, they decided, an ideal society where races could mix on terms of equality, where free Africans would prosper by cultivation and legitimate trade, and where the myths used to justify the slave trade would be finally demolished." p. 326-7 --Slp1 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any other sources that suggest this? I'm worried that the paternalistic aspect of the Sierra Leone project is getting lost. If you read Wilberforce's writings, the tone is more "we white people know best". I can't think of a white British abolitionist in the eighteenth century who argued for true equality between the races actually. Awadewit (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few "Promised free passage, free land and racial equality..." from [5] "For abolitionists, the Sierra Leone settlement was a welcome step toward the larger emancipation of blacks and toward the abolition of race as a primary differentiator of status in the British Empire" [6] , and "Richard Hogan, the chief justice, wrote in 1816 that he spared no effort to "inculcate with the most anxious and unaffected earnestness in the minds of the [settlers] that they are all equally free, all intitled [sic] to the same encouragement and protection: all possessed of the same right, without distinction, as well as liable to the same penalties for infringing [the rights] of others, and all alike objects of the paternal care and constant solicitude of the common government." from [7] --Slp1 (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. There are sources for this statement. I do not have the time to dig out all of my notes on this and see if this idea really deserves to have multiple viewpoints represented in the article (it takes a lot of time to figure that out). I might try to figure that out when I return from Wikimania, but that won't be until the end of July, so for now, I'll just strike this. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article uses single quotes and double quotes - pick a style and stick with it.

I think I got them all.--Slp1 (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Happily, we no longer have to link every date. You might think about delinking all of the dates and just check to see that they all follow the same style.

I've rationalised the style of the dates, although, as yet, I've not unlinked them. There is some discussion about that on the Talk page and I've not yet made up my mind of the best way forward. Any thoughts, anyone? Agendum (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the delinking is obligatory, is it? I believe, the consensus on the talkpage is that we would prefer to stay with the linking of the full dates. One editor really likes it, and they are used consistently, so hopefully that's okay.--Slp1 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not obligatory, no. Consensus rules the day. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On this occasion and throughout the campaign, abolition was held back by Wilberforce's trusting, even credulous, nature and his deferential attitude towards those in power. - I think this needs to be explained a bit more.

Added a bit to explain further.--Slp1 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there needs to be some reorganization - Wilberforce dies twice. It is quite confusing for the reader. The "Emancipation of the enslaved Africans" section might have to be broken up and some of the information moved later in the article - that way he stays alive. :)

Reorganized so he only dies once. Makes much better sense now, and it makes better sense to bookend his political life with the two slave-related aspects. Thanks.--Slp1 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Other concerns" section feels a bit tacked on and listy at the moment. Wilberforce, while primarily known now for his slavery work, contributed much time and effort to moral reform efforts. We have to be careful not to shortchange these - they were incredibly important in the eighteenth century. The Clapham Sect, of which he was a part, was known for these efforts. I wonder if this section could be written a little more cohesively? We might (gasp) have to use a bit more summary style on the abolition material.

Okay, final Awadewit job done, I hope. I have done my best (or worst) at delistifying, contextualizing, expanding and integrating these sections more into his life story. I sincerely hope they fit the bill.--Slp1 (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would combine the "References" and "Further reading" into one "Bibliography" as that will better aid those coming to the article for research assistance.

There's a style inconsistency in the References and Further reading sections, and I'm not sure how it came about. We have to pick one of the two and stick with it if we are to amlgamate these sections. Any advice from other editors? Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't only style be used, anyway? Awadewit (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Done.--Slp1 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the "List of works" a complete list or should it be labeled a "Selected list of works"? Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good thought and will do it. Looking at oclc there do seem to be other pamphlets etc he likely wrote and had published. I particularly like this one! [8]--Slp1 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions are helpful and I look forward to supporting the article soon. Awadewit (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Awadewit, for this and for your edits to the article itself. They are very helpful. I (and others, I am sure) will work through them in the next few days. Slp1 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be on vacation from now until 20 July, during which I will have intermittent internet access. I will revisit this nom as often as I can. Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and have a great time! Having spent some time in Egypt myself, I am sure you will find it fascinating and wonderful.--Slp1 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks too from me, for your interest and input into this article. It's much appreciated. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting! Thanks for writing this important article so well! Awadewit (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the phrasing here unintentionally ignores the somewhat earlier (not very successful) American campaign against the slave trade, in New York (see John Jay), Pennsylvania (John Woolman) and Virginia (Thomas Jefferson). (The original draft of the American Declaration of Independence cited a veto of legislation on this as one grievance against George III.) The sources themselves may not lay stress on this point; their authors are only considering the British, and sometimes the English, campaign. I have added a strategic British, which may suffice; but the article should be read through to be sure it's not overbold on this point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and help to globalize the article and as you recommend, I will look through the article to check that such assumptions are not being being. It is true that sources about Wilberforce tend to focus on the British campaign.Slp1 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I haven't read this article straight through in about three months. Very impressed by the latest revision: it is within the bounds of the Featured article criteria on all counts. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 13:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I thought this was already of FA standard when I peer-reviewed it, and it has only improved since. It's well-written, comprehensive, and throughly sourced. Slp1 and Agendum have done a commendable job in bringing this important article to such a high standard. This is a tricky subject because of the drawn-out and often circuitous and blurry development of the campaign and the difficulty of pinning down Wilberforce's character and contribution at key points. Hopefully the marathon will soon end with a victory. qp10qp (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've cleaned up the infobox info a bit: massive overlinking, repeats, unnecessary, MOS breaches. Why is that auto-range template displaying a spaced en dash? I think it's designed for full dates. Unspaced here, please; I think you need to just write the years, and the piped link for "1812" (twice, no less) is entirely unnecessary here: put it in the main text.
• I've cleansed it of date autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged; it's still pretty heavily linked. I removed a few trivial dictionary links (MOS says no). I've made a few of your closing page ranges two digits (please not 115–6); can you check them all, please?

Prose: it's not badly written, but I think a polish by fresh eyes is required (great advantage over those who are working from the inside of the text). Here are queries just from the lead, indicating that the whole text needs scrutiny.

• "resulting in changes in his lifestyle and in his interest in reform"—perhaps "resulting in significant changes to his lifestyle, and a lifetime interest in reform."
• You've made this binary: statement, and then also. "Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality, and education. He also championed other causes and campaigns, including the Society for Suppression of Vice, the introduction of Christianity to India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals." This would be straighter: "Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality, and education, and championed other causes and campaigns, including the Society for Suppression of Vice, the introduction of Christianity to India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals." Check whether "other" is necessary.
• "Wilberforce supported the campaign for complete abolition of slavery, and continued his involvement after 1826, when he resigned from Parliament because his health was failing". Please don't leave out "the", the way scientists often do. And try "... Parliament from ill-health."
• "Eventually" is usually inappropriate in an exact account; I'd remove it.
• By "passage of the Act ... was secure", do you mean that they'd agreed to pass it, but hadn't? Needs to be a bit clearer. TONY (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status on Tony's comments? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the page numbers, done more delinking, finished the date-delinking (though editorially consensus here and on the talkpage had been that we preferred to retain it, but anyway). I will try and figure out the infobox thing and have a look at the prose comments in intro about tonight. I confess to feeling a bit discouraged about the request for some fresh eyes for polishing the prose, though. Lots of eyes have already looked at it and made comments/improvements, and frankly, I don't even know where/how to recruit an outside person for such a task, as I gather the League of Copyeditors is defunct. WP:LOCE Any suggestions? --Slp1 (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes to the lead para in line with Tony's comments above. I'll have a look at the remainder of the article tomorrow. Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've fixed the infobox concerns, as far as I am able: I am presuming the spaced en dash is okay with full dates, as these appear to be part of the templating format, whether they are full dates or not. And User:Malleus Fatuorum has kindly agreed to be an independent set of eyes. --Slp1 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments:

• "During the frequent government changes of 1781–84 Wilberforce supported his friend Pitt in parliamentary debates, and in autumn 1783 Pitt, Wilberforce and Edward Eliot, travelled to France." What has the first half of the sentence got to do with the second half? Why did they all decamp to France anyway?

The idea was supposed to be that W and P were so pally that they went on their hols together.--Slp1 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably ought to say that then, as it wasn't clear to me. I thought that perhaps they were off on some kind of parliamentary jolly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified here [9], which I hope did the trick.--Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "On 6 April, when the Whigs were defeated, he was returned as MP for Yorkshire at the age of twenty-four." What has the defeat of the Whigs got to do with Wilberforce's election?

The Whigs had been very powerful in Yorkshire, but the country was very pro-Pitt at the time, so the election in Yorks was between the Whigs and the Yorkshire Association (which was pro-Pitt but not strictly speaking Tory). WW was elected under the YA banner. But it is all so complicated that I think the best thing to do would be to just deleted it. --Slp1 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and I did.--Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Need to be consistent in whether parliament is capitalised or not. "Wilberforce attended Parliament regularly ..." ... "In 1786 Wilberforce leased a house in Old Palace Yard, Westminster, in order to be near parliament." Same with parliamentary/Parliamentary.

How very interesting. Good point. Hague uses both capitalized and non-capitalized, as does Hochschild, while Tomkins uses longer case throughout. There must be some method here. I will try and figure out what it is and make it consistent once I understand the issue. Thanks for all the help, so far, BTW!Slp1 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay it seems (by implication a bit) from this [10] and [11] and this [12] that caps are for specific Parliaments and non-caps are for generic mentions. I will go through and ensure that these are consistent in the article/Slp1 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The colony, while troubled at times, became a symbol of anti-slavery, with residents working with African tribal chiefs and communities to prevent enslavement at source, while a British naval blockade was to stem slavery from the region." Not sure about the chronology or precise meaning here. Was to stem slavery?

Yes, the blockades didn't start till later (after abolition).Slp1 (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. But the "was" doesn't really make that clear. It could be interpreted as "was supposed to, but didn't". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had changed it here [13], which I hope does the trick--Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The few issues I raised above, while I'd like to see them resolved, are not enough to cause me to have any doubt that this really excellent article deserves to be featured. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.