# Talk:Duchess Quamino

This review is transcluded from Talk:Duchess Quamino/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 02:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Image review

File:Reverend William Ellery Channing by Gilbert Charles Stuart.JPG: US PD tag is needed. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Source review

Academic sources and newspaper articles are cited.
Could the online newspaper/website be mentioned at each web source? Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I think I've done this. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
References 1, 3, and 10 checked. Although close paraphrasing might be detected in some cases, it could hardly be avoided without changing core information.
She catered at least once for George Washington. This is not presented as a fact in the two cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The article by Okona says Her specialty was a frosted plum cake, which she made for the wealthy and the influential people who passed through Newport—George Washington being one of them. “There is secondary information [stating] that when George Washington arrived at Newport, she provided catering for that venue,” Stokes says. I guess it depends on what it means to say she catered "for" someone -- I understood it as "she catered an event where George Washington ate" (which seems to be true), but I suppose it could be read as "she was hired by George Washington as a caterer" (which doesn't seem to be the case). I've revised. (I also removed the Smith source since it was less detailed / more speculative than the Okona.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Both sources (Okona and Smith) indicate that we cannot regard this information as a fact, I would rephrase the sentence. "He catered for events attended by prominent people visiting Newport; secondary sources name George Washington as one of her distinguished customers."  (Or something similar.) Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Hm, I think George Washington being one of them is a statement of fact. But I am OK with the wording you propose here, especially since there's certainly a local-legend aspect that the article shouldn't overstate. (E.g., the WaPo article says her prestige for baking was so revered that she was reportedly commissioned to make a birthday cake for George Washington, according to lore shared by Barada, and that sounds like local-legend telephone to me.) I've revised this bit. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments

I have not read the lead, but I would expand it with three or four sentences.
Done. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
She may have been born in Senegal or Ghana, probably in 1739. Attribute the assumptions to scholars (and ideally expand the article with facts substantiating these assumptions).
I believe all the sources say "probably 1739" because her gravestone says she died in 1804 at 65 years old, but nobody spells out they that just did the math. I was able to add a little more info about why Ghana or Senegal -- it seems to just because this is where most enslaved people were brought from. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
..., which may have been her original name... This is quite dubious, taking into account that she was not born into an English-speaking family.
I think they mean 'original' in the sense of 'the first name she was given once enslaved'. I've decided to amend this to follow the recent WaPo article, which says Although Quamino’s birth name remains unknown, she was alternately called Charity and Duchess, the latter a nickname that reflected the belief that she was born to African royalty. The WaPo is more thoroughly researched and more recent than other sources. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Link and introduce Rhode Island as a state in the USA.
The lead does link Rhode Island; I added a gloss that it is American. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Link slave ship.
Done. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
...a cook and a nanny... Is the use of the determiners grammatical?
Yes, to my tongue at least it would be quite odd to say she worked as cook and nanny, like saying she worked as firefighter. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
...including the town's Trinity Church, but Quamino was not concealed at Second Congregational. I would delete the reference to the Trinity Church, and mention that Second Congregational was an exception of the general rule. Do we know why was it an exception?
I cut the Trinity Church detail. Nobody has commented on why there was an exception here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Could you introduce her husband? (Perhaps, as a household slave?)
There's no evidence he was a household slave-- nobody seems to have any idea what he was doing. All we have recorded for this period of his life is just that he was enslaved by Captain Benjamin Church. Since he later went to sea as a privateer it's quite possible he was enslaved in some kind of seafaring capacity with Captain Church. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
During their marriage,... Is this necessary?
Deleted. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Her husband... Delete.
Done. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
It has been said that the Channings manumitted her, but also that "she convinced [Channing] that the two races should be considered equal — yet he did not free her." Although there is no concrete evidence that she bought her own freedom, it is typically attributed to the success of her business. I would rephrase these sentences.
It has been said... By whom?
As I tried to reword, I decided that that whole sentence was kind of unhelpful / not informative enough to be worth keeping, so I removed it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Link "frosted" to Icing (food).
The WaPo says The cake may have been finished with a decorative dusting of confectioner’s sugar, as opposed to a glaze or icing (based on what was normal for cakes at the time) so I hesitate to add this particular wikilink. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
This recipe has not survived; there is no evidence that Quamino was literate to write down her recipes. I would change the sequence of the sentence's two parts.
Hm, I can't figure out how to reverse them without making a very bumpy transition from the previous sentence. Feel free to rewrite it yourself though if you have an idea for it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
...[Channing]... Which?
This one has been cut now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
...it is typically attributed... By whom?
Local legend, basically. I've added that in. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Interesting article, thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough comments! The next few days are a bit busy for me, but I expect I will be able to address these revisions on Tuesday. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Borsoka, I think I have addressed all of your comments! Let me know if you have any other concerns. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for this interesting article. I always like articles about minor actors of human history and culture. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)