Talk:Woman's club movement in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 55 external links on Woman's club movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Woman's club movement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SusunW (talk · contribs) 16:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the article and will be assessing it. As I have never done this before, bear with me.

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) See below Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) See below Pass Pass

    Lede[edit]

    The only issue I see with the lede summary is the reason that the "movement" occurred and then waned. From the article, it is clear that when women had no legal identity they joined clubs as a means of civic participation. As laws were passed to secure and define women's citizenship, club membership became less vital, as women's rights were protected and they could broadly participate in society.

    Tweaked the lede. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    History[edit]

    1. Why was abolition less of an issue in the American West? To people unfamiliar with US history the reason is unapparent. Maybe you should mention the Missouri Compromise's prohibition of the introduction of slavery to western states to place the statement in historical context? [1]  Done
    2. "The GFWC grew to around a half a million women by 1914" …Source states 1.5 million, which is supported by [2] which says at the founding of the GFWC there were 20,000 members, which increased to more than 1 million by 1910.  Done
    3. "Women in clubs raised money, worked with the Red Cross and more" … more is rather vague. Might be better to state, "and performed other activities such as," … Woman's clubs knitteding socks, rolleding bandages for soldiers and sold selling war bonds.  Done
    4. The paragraph beginning "The GFWC excluded African-American clubs from their membership", would be better placed earlier in the history section, as it is reflecting formational ideology. Perhaps it should be moved to precede "Sorosis and the GFWC saw large increases in membership in 1889 and 1890".  Done
    5. "and sometimes also" replace with ", as well as"  Done
    6. "White women's clubs ignored race" might be better stated as "ignored racist inequalities" or "ignored racist norms/societal policies/segregationist policy"? Ignoring race implies that it did not matter, but the fact that black women were excluded from membership makes it clear that race was important to them. Rather, the issues related to race were too controversial for them to want to tackle.  Done

    ____________________________________

    1. I'm removing that part. Looking into the research, there's not enough to expand on that for now. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Fixed the numbers. I think I misread the number of women in the Wood/Pennybacker source. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Fixed the WWI section. The first source talks about setting up communications (which was the "and more") and the second deals with the small practical things women did. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Moved Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Fixed, I think. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    African-American club movement[edit]

    1. After slavery was ended in the United States..when?  Done
    2. ”…devoid of morality, sexually wanton…” ref says p=92, but I find the ref on p=492  Done
    3. ”Well's anti-lynching campaign set off”, possibly angered or provoked is a better word? Set off is, simply, divided, which doesn’t imply that it necessarily angered the press president.  Done

    __________________

    1. Date added. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Oops! Typo. Fixed. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    3. I like "provoked." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Impact[edit]

    1. entire paragraph is unsourced.  Done sources added. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Education[edit]

    1. "surrounding class size", do you mean classroom size?  Done
    2. "create educational efforts", do you mean educational opportunities?  Done

    Art and music[edit]

    1. After "Clubs also hosted arts exhibits", it might mention that African-American women used events to create acceptance of their community's cultural traditions. (Rabaka, p=59) The source states that it was one of the most important functions in raising social consciousness, so it appears important to note.  Done

    ___________

    1. I'm glad you pointed this out. This led me to finding another source and more info which I think will lead to another article on an African American Women's Club. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Libraries[edit]

    1. Possibly merge "When libraries were threatened with elimination..." with the previous paragraphs? It seems odd to have a single sentence as a paragraph.  Done

    Legal reform[edit]

    1. "An act passed on March 2, 1907" link Expatriation Act of 1907  Done
    2. ... "made it the law" possibly would be simpler just using "required"?  Done
    3. Perhaps introducing that the Expatriation Act created inequality is important? Foreign-born women gained American citizenship upon marrying a male with US citizenship, but American-born women lost citizenship if they married a foreigner. Thus married women within the society were unequal under the law.
    4. "Women needed to have citizenship independent of their husbands.[174] It was important to establish citizenship for the right to vote." Might be more clearly worded as "For women to attain a civic or legal identity, such as the right to vote, they needed to have independence from their husbands' citizenship" as it is evident that they didn't actually need to have separate citizenship unless their civic and legal identity was recognized.  Done

    ---

    Not sure how to address #3. I don't remember running into that as a problem that WC's dealt with. They seemed more worried about losing citizenship... though the women getting citizenship through marriage may have been part of their anxiousness about immigration (esp with the white women). Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I picked that up from your source by Megan Smith. You are probably right that they did not focus on it--just like mainstream women's rights movements failed for the most part to understand the differences in minority communities and working class women. To me it is fascinating because it is such a narrow view of expanding human rights. It is, for me, interesting to see how we have evolved in our struggles. ;) SusunW (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fashion[edit]

    1. Combine the sentences into a paragraph. One sentence is typically not considered a paragraph.  Done
    2. Maybe omit "Women's clubs also" and state "Other clubs"  Done
    3. "use of bird feathers", should just be linked to <no wiki>use of bird feathers</no wiki>, omitting the see also phrase and appending "as a means of protecting wildlife".  Done
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) All statements appear to be supported by the cited references, with the one exception noted above for correction. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Sourcing appears to be reliable and does not rely on uncurated material. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) There does not appear to be any original research. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) There do not appear to be copy violations or plagerism from a spot check of sourcing and Earwig review. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article broadly discusses the movement and issues upon which groups focused. As human rights is a huge field, it would be impossible for any article to cover all aspects of a social movement, but the major concerns of women in the period were discussed. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The article does not veer off into unrelated information or topics. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The content of the article appears to be neutral and unbiased Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Article is stable, no apparent editwarring
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images appear to have appropriate licensing information appended. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All images have captions and appear to be illustrative of topics related to the article. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass appears to meet criteria

Discussion[edit]

Overall the article is well written and broadly discusses the subject matter in a neutral manner. In the opinion of the reviewer, clarification of a few items is needed. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the points raised, please let me know. SusunW (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: I addressed most of the issues and I found a new source with cool information that has led me down a new rabbit hole. :D Let me know what you think of my changes and I'm so glad you were my reviewer. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl: I think you've addressed all the concerns and comments I had. And yes, new rabbit holes--now I am fascinated by that marriage thing. I have seen it impact many of the women I have written about when they lost citizenship, and am now curious about how it effected women who gained other citizenship. Was it ever beneficial? Hmmmmm SusunW (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

I am wondering[edit]

if the United Daughters of the Confederacy should be in here somewhere? I would just add them but since this is my first time here I thought I'd ask first. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carptrash: From the reading I've done (for my dissertation), scholars and historians of women's clubs don't consider the Daughters of the Confederacy as part of the women's club movement. The UDC was generally founded to erect monuments, a much narrower focus than the wide-ranging social reform, education, and activism work of the women's clubs. I'd be interested to hear if others have read similar or different takes. Nonmodernist (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nonmodernist:I can see where the UDC might be different, however if you consider that the monuments were pretty much all done by (a semi-educated guess) the 1920s and the organization is still going strong, the UDC as solely monument builders seems a bit simplistic. Carptrash (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

women's clubs[edit]

I came here hoping to find out if the women's clubs I was familiar with in the U.S. in the fifties and sixties are still around. I don't know if those clubs, quite common in the Mid-West, were a art of the WCM, and the article doesn't seem to help. The clubs I knew were social, with the women meeting maybe once a week or month or so to quatch and play cards. Many of them were very exclusive in that their numbers were limited, and they had long waiting lists for entry, which was usually only granted when someone died or moved away. Can anyone say whether those clubs were an outgrowth of the WCM or not, and to what extent they still exist. 213.109.221.183 (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woman%27s_club_movement_in_the_United_States&oldid=1207451382"