Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kate Sheppard/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 [1].

Kate Sheppard

Nominator(s): gadfium 05:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the leader of the New Zealand suffrage movement, which gained votes for women 125 years ago on 19 September 1893. The first election in which women could vote was held on 28 November 1893.-gadfium 05:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be on holiday and unavailable to respond from 6 August to 21 August. Please don't close this FAC due to lack of response during this period. Other editors may be able to address issues raised while I'm away.-gadfium 20:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I will be unable to make any substantial contributions from now until 22 August, as I will have limited internet and only a mobile phone to access it with. I remain committed to the featured article process.-gadfium 06:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now back in New Zealand.-gadfium 08:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the comic and petition
File:Julius_Vogel,_ca_1870s.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Women's_Suffrage_Petition_1893_(9365778997).jpg, File:National_Council_of_Women,_Christchurch,_1896.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've scaled up the images suggested. I think perhaps the petition is now too large but I'll leave it for further comment.
- Each of the three images you identify have rationales as to why they are in the public domain in New Zealand. I'm not a copyright expert, and if these rationals are not sufficient, I'm happy to remove the images from the article. The photographer of the Vogel portrait died in 1919 and the photo was taken in the 1870s, so it is clearly public domain as New Zealand uses life of author plus 50 years.[2] For the petition, if you accept the copyright belongs to the original petition and not the much later digitisation of it, Sheppard was the author and she died in 1934. The photo of the National Council of Women has an unknown photographer, so its copyright status depends on when it was published. I am not clear on whether this photo was published in the NZ Graphic in 1896, or a similar photo was published there. @Schwede66: might have more information.-gadfium 18:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The primary issue in these cases is the US status - they currently use tags indicating a pre-1923 publication, not simply creation. If a pre-1923 publication can't be demonstrated, a different tag would need to be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would happily change the tags of the first two to PD-old-70, but that tag says it also needs a US-specific tag. This needs someone well-versed in copyright law to sort out.-gadfium 20:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have changed the tags of these three images to PD-US-unpublished. If there is evidence found that any have been published, then the original tags were correct. If this is not an acceptable solution, I will request assistance at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.-gadfium 23:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've looked into the issue whether the third photo (New Zealand Council of Women) was published in the 16 May 1896 edition of The New Zealand Graphic as implied by the National Library entry. I'd say this is highly likely (what else would they mean by giving this reference?). But one way to know for sure is to go to a library and have a look. Nine libraries hold copies of this journal and the closest one to me is the Canterbury Museum Documentary Research Centre. If needed, I'd be happy to enquire with them (a) whether they hold this edition and (b) whether they give me access. Let me know if it's needed. Schwede 66 05:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes please. If you find you don't have time, I can look in the Auckland Museum library.-gadfium 08:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Schwede66: I can go to the Auckland Museum today if you have not already had a chance to look at this.-gadfium 20:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I didn't see the previous reply - sorry. This page wasn't on my watchlist (it is now). Let me know if you have success today / find the time to go. If not, I'll ask at the local museum here. Schwede 66 20:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        The Auckland Museum was not able to supply this to me today, although they do have it, so I found a copy at University of Auckland. The photo was published in 1896, and I have updated the Commons description accordingly. Thanks to @Schwede66: and @Susan Tol: for their help.

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your copyedits, and your support. You have a great ability to turn convoluted prose into plain English!-gadfium 03:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Your writing is in very good shape, and easy to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Looks good.

fn 100, 101, 106, 108, 116 and 117 differ from the rest. Suggest moving them down into the sources to match.
On the other hand, "Women and the vote: Introduction" and "1893 women's suffrage petition" from New Zealand History are not used in the article. Suggest moving them to the Further Reading section.
I had to click on the link to find out what they call "football" in New Zealand

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll tackle these in the morning, about 12 hours from now.-gadfium 06:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-gadfium 23:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions, which definitely improved the article. And thank you for your support.-gadfium 19:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

" a position through which she elevated the cause of suffrage in New Zealand" A bit clumsy. Maybe " and she used the position to advance the cause of female suffrage in New Zealand"
"Kate Sheppard promoted suffrage" I think you need to say female suffrage each time.
"she successfully advocated for women's suffrage" I think the wod for is not needed.
"Failing health provoked a return to New Zealand" provoked is an odd word here.
"George Beath, the partner of Kate's sister Marie" What does partner mean here - lover? fiancé? business partner?
"also Classics Master at Christchurch High School at the time" I think "at the time" is superfluous.
What are Relative Statistics?
"prohibition and women's suffrage would be the organisation's central aim." Presumably aims.
"he eventually did so on 19 September, which granted women full voting rights" This sounds awkward. I suggest deleting "which granted women full voting rights" and moving it to replace "enabling women's suffrage" at the beginning of the paragraph.
" it was not until 1933 that the first woman was elected to parliament" No change needed, but I see Britain was ahead of NZ on this, and presumably on first woman cabinet minister with Margaret Bondfield in 1929.
"but also found time to promote " I would delete "found time"
"Sheppard bought new furnishings and appeared to be planning for a permanent residence" This is unclear. New furnishings for a house in Canterbury?
A first rate article but some minor niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
Re George Beath: In modern New Zealand, "partner" means romantic partner, possibly more so than in other Western countries, but I agree it is inappropriate and confusing in this context. I considered "boyfriend" but I think that would also be inappropriate for that era. The source does not say they were lovers at that point, nor whether they were engaged. "Suitor" might work, but I went with "future husband" which makes no assumptions at all.
Relative Statistics seems to be a term used by the prohibition movement and I cannot find a definition of it. In the American temperance movement, the equivalent position was at one time called "Relation of Intemperance to Labor and Capital with Relative Statistics" (source: "A brief history of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union : outline course of study for local unions", section 36, from which I gather it means the comparitive consumption of alcohol between the working classes and the capitalists. Perhaps the term was used differently in New Zealand, so I am reluctant to add such an explanation to the article.
Thank you for your review, and if my changes are not satisfactory I am very happy to discuss further improvements.-gadfium 22:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - and sorry I forgot to do it earlier. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article has now certainly reached FA standard. (I went ahead and made a few last-minute copy edits rather than compiling a list of further matters requiring attention.)--Ipigott (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.-gadfium 22:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

I think ref formatting has been checked above but we still need signoff on source quality/reliability.
Also as this appears to be the nominator's first FAC, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate usage and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing.

You can make requests for these at the top of WT:FAC (unless any of the reviewers above would like to do the honours). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request as suggested.-gadfium 08:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Checking now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No copyvio detected.
Sources look reliable.
FN #3 - used twice and material faithful to source.
FN #8 - used thrice and material faithful to source (can't check the school bit).
FN #118 - used once and material faithful to source

Ok I am happy....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I will be promoting this shortly. Just a few little points that don't need to hold up promotion but I would be grateful if someone could take a look at them. Sarastro (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have no publisher for West! 1858–1966.
As we are referencing a print version of The Dictionary of New Zealand biography, do we have an ISBN?
We are not consistent with the giving the location of a publisher. It needs to be one or the other. Sarastro (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.