Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inter-Allied Women's Conference/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Inter-Allied Women's Conference[edit]

Inter-Allied Women's Conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator(s): SusunW (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the women's conference which paralleled the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. Because the French records of the conference hosts were stolen by the Nazis, scholarship on the conference did not emerge until the 21st century. When taken to GA, it was suggested by Gog the Mild to prepare the article for FA status and as a preliminary phase to send it for a Class A review. Both GA and Class A reviews passed and the article significantly improved during the process. In preparing it for a FA nomination, consultation with Gog and Ipigott, both veterans of the process were sought. In the final stage, the list of participants was removed and converted to prose within the article and 4 additional photographs were located and added from those reviewed during the Class A process.

(Note, this is my first FA nomination, so I am not very sure how the process works. Should anyone need access to the materials provided to me by professors Cobble and Siegel, I can e-mail them upon request.) SusunW (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll do my best to actually review this, but SusunW, It's great to see you here! Vanamonde (Talk) 15:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Sticking my flag here, intending to look at this in a few days. I've read the first couple of sections already and I must say, this is very good. CassiantoTalk 20:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Great to see this here, SusunW! I remember how FAC can be a bit intimidating for first-timers. Although I looked this over at Milhist ACR, I have some more comments:

Nice to see you as well Peacemaker67. Thanks for your comments. SusunW (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • link League of Nations (at first mention, and rm link from the second mention), Human trafficking and Suffrage in the lead
done SusunW (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • also in the lead, "and the transformation of education to include the humanitarian rights of all persons in each nation." could do with some improvement, as I am unsure what it means. I'm not sure it is a clear reflection of the proposals mentioned in the body.
This is a tough thing to summarize further, Gog and I worked on it, but please feel free to make a suggestion. In the body we have: "The women's final point was that provisions should be made to ensure that internationally education provided training on civilisation and the obligations of citizenship, with a focus on respecting the humanity, cultures, and human rights of all citizens of each nation." Basically, they wanted the League of Nations to transform education and internationalize it so that young people were taught about general culture, history, and the moral and societal development of each nation to instill "in each individual conscience the sense of human solidarity, and the respect due to the liberties and rights of each nation". (Oldfield, p 106) So in essence, they wanted, but didn't say so in so many words, anthropology, sociology, political science, theology studies, and global news rolled into basic education studies so students would develop empathy for other people and cultures. SusunW (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "to the President of the United States Woodrow Wilson"
done SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • there is a bit of a chronological hiccup in the Background section. I think the info about the French delegation to Wilson should follow the response to the letter of 25 January, then go on with the Labour and Socialist International Conference.
Okay, I moved February 1 up and reworked the section. SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Nine days later, when the conference opened" which conference, the parallel conference or the peace conference itself, it isn't immediately clear. In general, I think this section would benefit from some re-organisation along chronological lines to make things clearer.
See above. I moved 10 February to "Actions" section and hopefully rearranged it to flow better. SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • daily dispatches for Tthe Chicago Tribune Foreign News Service
done SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I suggest something like "On 11 February, a delegation led by chair Millicent Fawcett, a leader in the British suffrage movement and president of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, called on Wilson. The delegation included... The delegation asked if a Women's Commission could be included in the Peace Conference to address the concerns of women and children. At the meeting Wilson suggested, that instead of having a Women's Commission included in the conference, that the male diplomats on the commission form a Women's Commission to which the Inter-Allied Women's Conference could serve as advisers." You just need to re-state what commission the men were on. The League of Nations Commission? Or is it the Council of Ten?
We had this originally that way, but thought that by the time one got through the list of delegates the idea of the meeting was lost. I'll flip it again. At this point, they were speaking only to Wilson, at his lodging (sometimes it is called the Hôtel Murat, other times the Villa Murat). There was no men's commission. He suggested creating one from the delegates of the peace conference. Changed text from "male diplomats on the commission" to "male diplomats from the peace conference". SusunW (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "and delegates from Belgium, England, France, Italy, and possibly Australia.[Notes 2]"
done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • when first mentioning Poincaré, give his first name, then refer to him just as Poincaré thereafter
done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "suffragists testified" were all these women suffragists?
yes. (well except maybe the Polish woman, who I cannot figure out who was). Remember that they invited suffragists from all Allied Nations, thus, it I think can logically be assumed the people who responded were suffragists. SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • comma after Cécile Brunschvicg
done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • link Pacifism
done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think what might be missing is a short explanation of the structure of the Peace Conference and the subsidiary commissions. Doesn't need to be too long.
I'm not sure how that would have fit into this section, so I wrote a paragraph "Though initially the Peace Conference organizers ..." in the "Background" section. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • link Child labour, Parental leave (for maternity pay) and Vocational education (for trade education)
done SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The resolutions the women's conference delegates presented to the chair of the Labour Commission..."
done SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • when referring to delegates, make sure you specify delegates to which conference or commission
I think I have got all these, but if not, let me know. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest inserting subsection headers in the Actions section for the Labour Commission and League of Nations Commission to break up the section
Maybe instead, since they spent February just asking to be heard, dates are better separators? If you don't concur, advise. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • link child marriage, prostitution, human trafficking
done SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "provisions should be made to ensure that internationally education provided training on civilisation" needs some sort of modifier, doesn't read right.
changed to "internationally, basic" for more information see above response to your 2nd query. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • where someone has been mentioned with their full name, thereafter they should be referred to just using their family name, per MOS:FAMILYNAME unless there is more than one person in the article with the same family name.
Okay, again, I think I got all these, but if I missed any, let me know. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, down to Aftermath. Will have a look at the rest tomorrow. This is a great article on a very important subject, well done for developing it to this point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your review Peacemaker67. I think I have addressed your queries, though some discussion may still be required. I really do appreciate your review(s), which have certainly improved the article. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries, it was a great read and I learned a lot. I will read through again over the next day and give you my thoughts on the changes you have made. My only remaining comment is that some work is needed on the gallery of Conference participants. I have two screens, and even on the biggest one, some of the names wrap onto a following line. They should be restrained to only have each name on a single line. I don't work much with galleries, so I'm not sure of the solution, but perhaps you could use a different template, or you could ask at Template talk:Gallery for some help? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Peacemaker. I have just (re)checked the gallery on four devices and six screens and it displays fine every time. Is there any chance that you could email me a screenshot so I can see what the problem is? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Gog the Mild, I think we all know I have no idea about technical stuff. I appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like it is just me. Not to worry. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, have had another read through, and all my comments have been addressed. Well done on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Peacemaker67 It has been a pleasure to improve the article with you. SusunW (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


Overall this is excellent. A few suggested tweaks:

  • " their efforts were significant in that they marked the first time" -> " their efforts were the first time ..."?
done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • " They were also successful": don't need the "also"
done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You have organisations and organizers. (Organis~ has the majority over organiz~)
It was decided at GA phase that since the Paris Peace Conference was written in British English (but not Oxford, I forget which dictionary, maybe Collins?) this article should be as well. Thus, I always have to have someone follow behind and "Britishize" the English. Thanks for that. done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Though initially the Peace Conference organizers": It took me 3 or 4 reads of this to understand it. Perhaps a rephrasing along the following lines or similar may help: "Although the Peace Conference organisers had planned to make the plenary sessions key to framing the treaties, the need for secrecy and to quickly resolve terms prevented the public sessions from doing so"?
done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "that labour issues": as this is written in BrEng, this does jar for me: "employment issues" may be better, but I won't push the point if you demur.
done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as Armenia, Belgium, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, and South Africa": I'm not sure we need to link all these (per WP:OVERLINKING). If there is a good reason, then Great Britain, France and Italy were all named above, where the links should have been. (I know they are all technically different legal entities than the current modern states, but unless it makes a difference to how they acted and unless it's identified as being the former entity, I'm not sure the link is needed). Ditto Greece and Serbia in the section below
There was a big debate at the class A review about what should be linked. As you can see from the discussion, it was felt that the links gave historical context. I have moved the links on the UK, France and Italy, to be less of a sea of blue. Does that help? SusunW (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree with the conclusion, but as there is a consensus, I'll not object. I think most people will acknowledge that countries were different, but as the names are largely the same, the nuance of a former legal entity compared to the present day will be lost on pretty much everyone. (In other words, it's fine to leave them as they are, but I'll harrumph about it, then forget it). - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 :) Thank you for your honesty. It is often difficult to harmonize many varying views. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "[25][26][27][28]" You could think of using citation bundling to avoid the string of links – I have a rule of thumb of three as a maximum)
The problem to my mind with the instructions on bundling is that the citations end up as a note. Since these are not the same thing, I have zero idea how to make them not appear as a note. All four are necessary as Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, South Africa, UK, US appear in the The Star Tribune; Siegel does not list Poland but does list New Zealand; Oldfield is the only source listing Armenia; and Andrews is the only source listing Romania. If you have another solution, I'll gladly try it, but I stress again, I am not a coder and have very little skill with wp technology. SusunW (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I've done it for you here - it's a trick that isn't used too often (mostly because it's a little fiddly), but it can be useful. If you really don't like it, then remove it, but I find it's easier for readers who don't want to get smacked round the head by long strings of blue links! - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Now I've learned a new citation skill. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Though their conference did not begin until February, when they arrived in Paris, the women immediately got to work" I'm not sure what this is adding. The previous sentence says their conference was "mid-February to mid-April", the next sentence says the conference opened on 10 February. This middle sentence seems superfluous – or I've missed the point of what it is trying to say.
Removed it. done SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe tweak the image caption to read "Millicent Fawcett in 1913"?
The problem to my mind with adding a date is that for consistency then all the photographs would need a date, which in some cases is impossible to determine. We know when they were published, but not necessarily when they were taken. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Note 2) "Australian delegate[55] Neither": full stop needed
done SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There are several uses of the terms "United States" and "United Kingdom": after the first use they can be trimmed to US and UK (unless in a formal title). You also use United Kingdom, Great Britain, England and Scotland in various places: best to pick one for all.
Having done many GAs, I have been advised numerous times to avoid acronyms, as it forces the reader who is unfamiliar to have to go back and find the original meaning. (I lean that way as well, as I often have no earthly idea what people who speak in wiki acronyms are referring to.) Far clearer to my mind to spell it out. I have (tried to) adhere to what the sources called the countries they were representing, which is why there are variances. It seems to me a more specific, rather than a broad general term is contextually more helpful, but veering too far from the sources is also not preferred. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the UK and US are sufficiently well known to allow the shortened form. In terms of the locations for the UK, I think we're in danger of being too specific for a couple and not consistent in picking one name for all and sticking to it (and that includes England and Scotland - Lady Aberdeen, for example was born in London, so I'm not sure we can call her Scottish). Again, consistency is key, and I think readers would be best served with UK throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed them all, I think, to US and UK. SusunW (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Same sort of thing for the "National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies": the two mentions after the first can be as "NUWSS".
See above. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I think you'll have a few other reviewers pointing to this and the US/UK for changing too. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "In all,": Not needed – just begin the sentence as "The women's conference delegates"
done SusunW (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the final sentence of this section repeat the essence of the final sentence of the February section, or is there a difference I've missed?
I think you must mean the last parts of March and April? (I see nothing in the February section that seems similar). To my mind, granting them approval and actually having it written in the Covenant of the League of Nations are two different things. Lots of things were promised with the creation of the League, but implementing is far different. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I am going to assume based on your comment above that we are okay with the links, but have unpiped Germany. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that the gallery of images meets WP:GALLERY guidelines. I expected that the section titled "participants" would list the attendees, rather than just be a selection of images of some of the attendees. I won't oppose over it, as I suspect the consensus will be against me on its inclusion, but it's worth keeping the comment in mind if others also disagree with the inclusion.
As I said in the introduction to this nomination, initially the participants were simply a list of names, but after discussion with Gog and Ian, it was felt that they should be incorporated as prose within the text. Thus, there is no duplication here with a list of the participants. At the good article stage, the photographs were presented as a banner, but it was pointed out that that created difficulties with the photographs overlapping the text when viewed on mobile applications. To prevent that issue, they were converted to a gallery. If you would like, the section can be renamed to "Gallery of participants". SusunW (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Its not necessarily that, I just don't think the gallery explains anything to the reader – which is the primary aim of images. And, as it doesn't explain anything, it probably fails WP:GALLERY. As I said above, however, I won't oppose over it, but it's worth bearing in mind if others also complain about it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • You shouldn't include countries (eg. "Cheltenham, England": "Cheltenham, Gloucestershire" will suffice; just "London", rather than "London, England" and "Milton Park, Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom" just needs to be "Abingdon, Oxfordshire" – ditto for all the other countries.
I am not trying to be argumentative and am genuinely asking if there is a rule about this. I typically follow what the sourcing says. How am I to know that Abingdon, Oxforshire is preferred; or Cheltenham, Gloucestershire? If there is no country, I typically list it because it gives context (and for me, an idea of whether or not I am likely to have access to it). It seems to me that this may be a personal preference (and is similar to that frustrating bot that is constantly removing URLs if there is a DOI. I live in Mexico and having a DOI to a paywalled article or blocked site is not helpful to me. If I input a URL it is because it is accessible for people to read the entirety.) I am not inflexible and will change it if need be, but I would like to understand why this is preferred. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Have a look through the examples at Wikipedia:Citation templates, or pick a selection of FAs to look through to see how they do it. I've not seen that many articles that include the country, and when they are, it tends to be an American that lists every other country except the US - that's not a solid basis for an international encyclopaedia, and consistency of approach is necessary at FA. The article has "Boston, Massachusetts" and "Chicago, Illinois" without the need for USA, and so it should be true of Paris and London or Abingdon, Oxfordshire. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I've gone through all the refs and removed the countries, I think. It makes no sense to me, but it isn't a point I am going to argue. (Besides which, going through them, I see that awful bot I referred to above has replaced links with DOI and others with links that were not where I got them, i.e. as opposed to project Muse.) Such is life, as you said above, I am not going to lose sleep over it and after grousing about US/UK-centric oddities, will forget about it. SusunW (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This may be a bit long, but these are all rather nit-picky points in an excellent article, and I look forward to being able to support shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate the time you took to improve the article and am very grateful that you taught me a new skill. I am not sure if I have adequately resolved all of your comments. Please advise of next steps. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Another read through, and I'm happy to support. You should bear in mind the points above where we disagree, and if other reviewers also point to it as a problem, you should think about taking action. An excellent article and worthy of the FA star. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you SchroCat I truly appreciate your review. It's been a pleasure to make your acquaintance and work with you. SusunW (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)