Talk:Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: |
|
Expand and source the section on Leser v. Garnett.- Implementation. Obviously it wasn't completely smooth, because there was a Supreme Court challenge in 1922, but what other issues were there?
Background. Brief summary of the women's suffrage movement prior to the introduction of the amendment.- Amendment process. What arguments were made for/against it? What parties/faction supported/opposed it?
- Effects. Obviously it required states to allow women to vote, but what have been the lasting effects?
|
 |
Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was one of the good article nominees, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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. |
|
|
|
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
|
|
 C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Top |
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's History and related articles 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. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. |
[edit] Housekeeping chores
If anyone is keen, they can fill out some blank spaces on Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW/History, like how many edits were done on this article during its time as collaboration over February, the diff and word count and maybe a few comments about it. I didn't work on it much so am not really familiar with it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed I didn't have more time for this article. Hopefully the next one works out better. —Designate (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- The article was markedly improved. Before it look like little more than a stub; now it looks like a real article. SMP0328. (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Realistically, a question for those who've been working on the article thus far, how far off Wikipedia:Good article criteria do folks think it is? I am unfamiliar with the subject so am no good on comprehensiveness. If it just needs a nudge to get it over the line there, that would be a great place to leave it. I can copyedit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to believe this article is worthy of GA status, but I think you need to ask those who make such assessments. That doesn't mean you should make a GA nomination for this article. Find out what are the odds of success before making a nomination. SMP0328. (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was certainly improved quite a bit. But it needs more than copyediting, as far as I can tell. It meets all the GA requirements except the most important one (Broadness). The history is spotty and the sources are not broad enough for such a fundamental historical topic. The proposal and ratification section, in fact, is based almost entirely on a ten-paragraph essay from a website. It barely touches on the motivations of the proponents or opponents. It doesn't discuss any of the senators or state legislatures, all of which have their own history and motivations which should be addressed (especially Tennessee). The "Effects" section is three sentences long. I think we need editors with hard copies of books to dive into this, really, before it can hit the "Broadness" criterion for GA.
I'm not saying it's incredibly far off, though. As long as it "addresses the main aspects of the topic" it'll suffice for GA. That means it doesn't have to be the size of the World War II GA, but it should at least be longer than Pikachu! —Designate (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
To-do list for Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
