Talk:Thomas Lee (Virginia colonist)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Lee (Virginia colonist) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thomas Lee (Virginia colonist) was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 19, 2006	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
September 19, 2006	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
November 19, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 21, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 14, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
November 17, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Virginia High‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lee & Carter[edit]

Here are the excerpts from Dowdey, Clifford (1969). The Virginia Dynasties: The Emergence of 'King' Carter and the Golden Age. New York: Bonanza Books.

No love was ever lost between their families, even after - or especially after - Robert Carter's great-granddaughter married a collateral kinsman of Thomas Lee, and the couple produced the greatest Virginian of both families, Robert Edward Lee (p.354)

One family of consequence since Robert Carter's father's day, into which no Carter married, was the Lee family. The feeling between the "King" and the no longer young Thomas Lee influenced some of their immediate descendants. Through Thomas Lee's marriage to Hannah Harrison Ludwell, their children were cousins of Carter's Harrison grandchildren, but the younger Harrisons and the younger Lees shared an aggressive dislike which continued even while they were working for the same ends in the Revolution. (pp. 368-369)

But there's more describing Lee and his home, his job as some kind of land agent (which I think might be the reason for the animosity), etc., too much to type out, so if you can get your hands on the book, I think it would be worth it... --plange 01:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA status[edit]

On hold for 7 days due to three issues:

I find this confusing: "Two months later Hannah Lee gave birth to a son John. He died the same day due to Hannah Lee's escape from the burning plantation." ...How could a newborn die two months after the fire with the fire being the cause of the baby's death? This line is not clear to me.
Book refs--flesh out the details using cite book format, add publisher, city, etc and make the book refs a standard format using cite book.
the lead needs a second para, see WP:LEAD

I fixed some minor things for you. Rlevse 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did a baby die two days after mom's injuries and those caused baby's death? You haven't addressed other issues too.Rlevse 12:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Failed due to lack of repsonses after more than 7 days.Rlevse 13:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urg, real life issues led to a wikibreak, didn't have much time to use the computer. T Rex | talk 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff[edit]

This article has come on alot - any link to the status vote?--Shtove 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status vote? T Rex | talk 03:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA is not a vote. Rlevse 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA-Pass[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: MrPrada 02:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA-comments[edit]

Just a few... nothing major enough to withhold the GA-status, but probably need to be addressed before it can be advanced to A-class.

1. The numerous redlinks-I am a big fan of redlinks because it leads to article creation. However some of them are very unlikely to ever be created.
2. The references section-You don't need to list the same books over and over. You can use <ref>Author (Year), page #</ref> in a notes section and list the book title under references (see Hugh Ewing, another GA).
3. The tables of contents doesn't really make sense to me. It begins with section 1 (biography). Isn't the entire article a biography?
4. There are more categories that this article fits into.

That's about it. Anyway, congratulations, excellent work. MrPrada 10:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.whosyomama.com[edit]

www.whosyomama.com should not be used as a reference. It's hardly considered reliable. Toddstreat1 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah's Death Date[edit]

According to the Northern Neck Historical Magazine (Dec. 1991), Hannah Ludwell Lee died in 1750, not 1749.216.48.60.35 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Lee (Virginia colonist)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Kept[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Thomas Lee (Virginia colonist)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Significant uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant amount of uncited text, including most of the "Planter and naval officer" section. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of references from ODNB, but there's much outstanding. The writing itself isn't overly impressive either. I wouldn't be surprised if there's OR hidden in there. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.