Talk:Abigail Becker

For a later hopeful DYK...

... that Abigail Becker saved seventeen lives in five incidents, had eleven biological children, raised six stepchildren, and is known as the "Angel of Long Point"? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Abigail Becker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Very Polite Person (talk · contribs) 23:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 18:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow, this is quite the incredible story! I'm very happy to take this on for review, as part of both Women in Green's 9th edit-a-thon and the October 2025 GAN backlog drive. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! This one took a weird amount of work to get this far. I'm starting to go through everything. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• The citations to Pearce 1999, Boyer 1971 and Calvert 1889 need references to specific page numbers.

@Grnrchst: Boyer set, I'll start on the others. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought Boyer was set, now it's set, getting onto the others. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: all of the big PDFs are page marked now. Boyer requires an Archive.org membership to borrow/read the book. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person: That can be indicated in the citation by adding a url-access field; I just added one. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

rp is not preferred? I'd been doing that on Field propulsion due to the incredible complexity and size of some of the PDFs (hundreds of pages), and was going to do the same for Invention Secrecy Act next and then Mosaic effect. I have a bad habit of loving complex articles. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, I don't think there's any one preferred format, so long as it's consistent within the article. I prefer using sfn, but that's just me. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a good example article for sfn? I'll stick with rp here just as it's so far in, and I'll keep it for field too, but I'm always happy to find a new tool and option. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Nestor Makhno and Gaetano Bresci are the two articles I've gotten to Featured status, and they both use sfn formatting. There's absolutely no need to change the citation formatting here, it all looks good and makes sense for the format of the article. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hm, thank you. That may be much better for Field propulsion for, enough to think about redoing the rp's I've done there. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• The images being bundled together after the infobox isn't so good for mobile readers, nor for visual context. I'd recommend moving the photographs of the beaches to the beginning of the "Angel of Long Point" section, and moving the images of her wearing the medal to either the "Public recognition" or "Later life" sections.

Is the placement here (just updated) what you were thinking? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Aye, that's perfect! --Grnrchst (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• The photographs of Becker have license tags saying they were published before 1930, but it seems no evidence of publication have been provided.

@Grnrchst: is tying off Commons licensing questions part of GA? I'm not familiar with that. She died in 1905 in Canada? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person: Ensuring they're correctly tagged is part of criteria 6a. If she died in 1905, but you don't know whether these photographs were published before 1930, then it should be pretty safe to use the PD-Canada and PD-US-unpublished tags. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, both are sync'd. The one that preceded me already had the commons templates {{PD-1923}} and :::{{PD-Canada}} — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Per the Manual of Style on subsequent usage of names, we should be referring to Abigail by her surname, unless there is ambiguity about who is being referred to.

I'll check the rest, I got stuck I think on separating it between Abigail and Jeremiah. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Should be set! — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Early life

• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• "a detailed biography" Remove "detailed"; it's best we don't comment on the quality of a source in wikivoice.
• As the date and locations are the same, and only the year is different, I think this second sentence could be trimmed down a bit.
• To avoid repetition, it might be worth removing her parents name from the second sentence and introducing them when we discuss their background. Something along the lines of: "Her father, Elijah Jackson, was a United Empire Loyalist and a Dutch immigrant to New York who migrated north to Canada; her mother, Marie Grozaine, was French-Canadian."
• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• "At age 17, Abigail Jackson married Jeremiah Becker" No need to use her full name, as we've already introduced her.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Link to Long Point, as this is the first time it's mentioned in the body of the article.

@Grnrchst: I think Early life is set now? What do you think? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks good! --Grnrchst (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Angel of Long Point

• I don't think we should be using the epithet as the section header, as it could compromise the article's structural neutrality. Being more descriptive and titling it something like "Rescues" would be more immediately informative to the average reader.
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• This is one rather long run-on sentence, and could do with being broken up a bit. I'd recommend starting a new sentence with "Some years saw even higher tolls,"
• "usually left their bones, and sometimes those of their people, on the Point forever." Who is being quoted here?

@Grnrchst: OK, this one should be set too, if you want to check? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for retitling it and tightening up the prose. --Grnrchst (talk) Grnrchst (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Conductor shipwreck

• "during near midnight" -> "around midnight"
• "The crew had clung to the frozen rigging in the darkness throughout the night until sunrise seven hours later, throughout the storm" There's double case of "throughout"; recommend reducing it to say "The crew clung to the frozen rigging in the darkness throughout the stormy night, until the sun rose seven house later".
• "The storm had raged through the night," We've already been told this, there's no need to say so again.
• "by morning she was wading shoulder-deep into the freezing water" I thought she came across them in the early afternoon? Was this the following morning after discovering them?
• "Abigail assembled a fire" This is another long, run-on sentence that could be broken up.
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• "Despite being unable to swim, Becker waded shoulder-deep into the icy lake to assist the stranded crew" All of this is repeated from the previous paragraph; one of these instances needs to be cut. I'd recommend cutting the first instance, as it leads to a confusing back-and-forth in the chronology.

• "once rescuing both the ship's mate and her own disabled son" Her disabled son went into the sea? How? Why?

Surprisingly... from page 6 here:

"The mate was the second to make the attempt. Edward, my brother, who was lame and walking with crutches, wanted to help, and he tried to go in to his mother's assistance, but the sea was so heavy he could not stand; and she had to get them both out of the water."

Unclear wording by me? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for clarifying this. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• "and often barefoot and poorly clothed" Often?

I have no idea why I wrote 'often' there; that was an ugly sentence. This here is what I meant to do but somehow blew. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.

@Grnrchst: I'm pretty sure this ties off this section, but you may want to double check. I didn't like it at all re-reading it and went a bit scythe at first. But I think we're good.

Later shipwrecks

• " and then cared for by the Beckers, except for the cook, a woman, who went unaccounted for." Start a new sentence here: "They were then cared for by the Beckers, [...]"
• "Abigail, not really believing her child, " -> "Although she did not initially believe the child, Abigail [...]"}}
• In these two cases, what happened to the crew after she got them back to her cabin? How did they get off Long Point and return home?

Gonna take another swing here tomorrow. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 04:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: I went through what we have again and can't find anything about this. It's not like a totally water-bounded island out in the lake that you need a boat to reach most times; you can just walk over. I'd guess you had to wait for tides back then maybe. It's a giant sand spit. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah well, thanks for looking into it anyway. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: does that tie off this section? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Public recognition

• "from Buffalo but" -> "from Buffalo, but"

This one's set. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• I notice that nowhere in the article do we mention Becker actually being dubbed the "Angel/Heroine of Long Point", the article just takes it as a given that she was called this. Do we know the who/what/where/why/how of her getting this epithet? It's important to include this kind of information.

@Grnrchst: I never actually thought about this! As in, who coined the phrase... the earliest newspaper hit I can find is from 1960 here. Calvert has it in 1899. Greenleaf Whittier called her "Heroine of Long Point" in 1869. But Fleming in 1946 attributes it to the sailors in 1851: “May God keep you and bless you,” they said in farewell, “to you, the Guardian Angel of Long Point Bay, we owe our lives.”

It got a bit circuitous since different sources build from each other, but some later ones have things earlier ones don't. No source seems to say "x coined term" unfortunately, so I don't think we can make a big deal out of it. Funny how that came back to the start of the story. It seems to have just became the cultural nickname for her, like Lois Lane coining Superman, except Lois the sailors and Abigail is Clark. It just got said once and stuck.

That's what made this harder to build out and write, like I mentioned. For good measure, I found some of the better stuff later, so I had to revise heavily once. Which is why I ended up with some sentences to the wrong source, all fixed now.

Thanks for asking, that was fun to dig through the loops. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person: Thanks for digging into this! I think incorporating Fleming's attribution of it to the sailors would be very helpful to fully fleshing this out. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You know, that was a really good idea by you here. Check it out. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Fantastic! --Grnrchst (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Later life

• "Their cabin and small farm" As this is the first time we're mentioning them in a new section, introduce as "The Becker family's cabin and small farm".

This one's set. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• "Despite the financial strain, she expanded and maintained the homestead over time." Citation needed.

Another prior revision casualty I'm pretty sure, fixed now here. I'm dusting off the cobwebs here since it's been a while since I looked deeply at this article... in Calvert look around Mother wove and spun to get money for another cow. She always worked very hard to get clothes for the children. There's that and then a number of other remarks in old-timey prose that lines her up to support this. My more technical articles are a lot more straightforward... — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• This biography is about Abigail; I think the full details of her husband's death can be trimmed back a bit.

Got it here. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• "She lived out her later years in modest prosperity, despite the hardships of her early life" These aren't necessarily two contradictory halves of a sentence, so the "despite" reads a bit odd; reframing it as chronological might help.

This one's set. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [3] Seems to fail verification for all these details in the paragraph about her death and burial. Is this the right source?

@Grnrchst: This one I was putting off till now in case it was a bigger lift, but... it should be right. This is the version you would have reviewed [here]... it's still the same live now:

Becker died on 21 March 1905 at the age of seventy-five, was honored with a civil funeral, and is buried in Oakwood Cemetery, Simcoe, Ontario.[3] She was interred wearing her medals, with the Bible gifted decades earlier by Captain Dorr placed beside her.[3]

From that Fleming source:

"Abigail Becker lived to old age, with her second husband Henry Rohrer, on the farm she had been given and in the house bought with part of the purse of gold. And when the good woman died in 1905 this Grace Darling of Lake Erie was honored with a civic funeral. Her portrait hangs today in the Abigail Becker Ward of Simcoe Town Hospital, with her lifesaving medal on her breast and Captain Dorr’s gift Bible resting on her lap."

Oakwood and her explicit date of death is the only thing not there, but I just added <ref name="Pearce Becker Norfolk 1999" />{{rp|5}} on this edit here, so that closes that? I think that's the section. I'm glad you called this out because it turned up the poetry. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)

Legacy

• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [1] The first sentence fails verification; second sentence verified.

I'm pretty sure this was (another) casualty of sourcing moving around quickly when I was less experienced and revising from finding more. Totally redone, should be fine now and expanded: Abigail Becker#Legacy — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• The inconsistency in the date of birth should be included in the infobox, unless there's a good reason to believe the Encyclopedia of Canada over Pearce.
• "credited with saving the lives of seventeen people across five unique incidents." Why "credited with"? Is there doubt about it? If not, then you can just say "who saved the lives of seventeen people".
• Worth mentioning Long Point as the place she rescued people from earlier.
• Might be worth mentioning separating the well incidents from the shipwrecks. Including them in the same sentence implies they happened much closer together, but Becker was still a child when she rescued the people from the well.
• "Becker was recognized for her extraordinary acts of bravery and self-sacrifice, often risking her life in hazardous conditions. " This is far too puffy, tone it down. I might agree that these were "extraordinary acts of bravery and self-sacrifice", but we can't be saying that in wikivoice while maintaining a neutral point of view. Let the actions speak for themselves without such editorial flourishes.
• "heroism" Ditto. Describe her actions explicitly rather than praising it.
• " established a successful farmstead in Ontario" Successful how? It seemed to have been quite the struggle from the way it was depicted in the "Later life" section. Think "successful" could easily be cut here.

@Grnrchst: OK; I think that's all of it now integrated on the lede (infobox preceding edit). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! --Grnrchst (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe set or close to

@Grnrchst: I think that's everything now...? Let me know what you think, and thank you! I cannot believe I missed that poem all this time. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is sometimes unclear and often in-concise.

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

   There's parts where it diverges from the Manual of Style

2. 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:

   Page number references should be provided where possible. Page numbers have been added.

   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):

   One place where there's no citation. All fully cited.

   C. It contains no original research:

   A couple spotchecks failed verification, some parts seem like novel interpretation.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No plagiarism as far as I could see in spotchecks; Earwig finds no major similarities.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Doesn't cover how she was given her epithet.

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

   A couple cases where it loses focus from Becker's biography.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Some puffy language in the lead and the choice to use an epithet as a section header compromises the article's neutrality.

5. Is it stable?

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

   No major recent changes; last revert was over 15 years ago.

6. 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:

   Illustration is all good; photographs of Becker lack evidence of pre-1930 publication (per the license tags) are now properly tagged; photographs of Long Point were released under valid CC licenses.

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

   All directly relevant to the subject.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article needs work before it meets GA criteria, as it still has issues with prose, verifiability, broadness and particularly neutrality. It could get there with a bit of work though. Feel free to ping me once you've addressed these comments and/or if you have any questions. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

   Ok, this is all good to go now! Thanks very much for so thoroughly addressing all of these comments. I'm more than happy to pass this review now. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MisawaSakura talk 23:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Becker in 1905

• ... that the Angel of Long Point (pictured) saved seventeen lives across five different incidents?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Gene White (American football)
  • Comment: Driveby nom. A version of this hook with extraneous information previously appeared on the article's talk page.

Improved to Good Article status by Very Polite Person (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 332 past nominations.

Launchballer 13:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC).

• @Launchballer: Thanks for nominating it for me! I didn't know you could it on behalf of other people, neat. I was going to send it up today to here. Do I still need to do an extra review myself since it was my DYK? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

QPQ liability lies with the nominator, although I do need someone to assess my hook for Gene White.--Launchballer 16:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This nom is: a newly-promoted GA, long enough, well-sourced, neutral, BLP-compliant, and copyvio-free, presentable, the hook is cited to reliable sources and is short enough and interesting, the image is freely licensed, clear at a diminished size, and used in the article, QPQ done. GTG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

To Prep 2