Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inter-Allied Women's Conference/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 November 2019 [1].

Inter-Allied Women's Conference

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

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. Cassianto^Talk 20:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"to the President of the United States Woodrow Wilson"

done SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

daily dispatches for Tthe Chicago Tribune Foreign News Service

done SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

suggest "and delegates from Belgium, England, France, Italy, and possibly Australia.[Notes 2]"

done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

comma after Cécile Brunschvicg

done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Pacifism

done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

link Child labour, Parental leave (for maternity pay) and Vocational education (for trade education)

done SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The resolutions the women's conference delegates presented to the chair of the Labour Commission..."

done SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

link child marriage, prostitution, human trafficking

done SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sounds like it is just me. Not to worry. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you Peacemaker67 It has been a pleasure to improve the article with you. SusunW (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Overall this is excellent. A few suggested tweaks:

Lead

"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)[reply]

"They were also successful": don't need the "also"

done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

:) Thank you for your honesty. It is often difficult to harmonize many varying views. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you. Now I've learned a new citation skill. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(Note 2) "Australian delegate[55] Neither": full stop needed

done SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay, I've changed them all, I think, to US and UK. SusunW (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

March

"In all,": Not needed – just begin the sentence as "The women's conference delegates"

done SusunW (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Legacy

Again, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands and Germany don't need to be linked. The last one could be retained, but only if left unpiped as Nazi Germany

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)[reply]

Participants

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. archive.org 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support by Rosiestep

Support. A wonderful and important article. Thank you for the time you put into this. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by GMG

Placeholder. GMG ^talk 21:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated on Susan's talk page, I've already reviewed the images, and the only ones I'm not comfortable giving the green light to (no pun intended) are three that depend on a non-renewed copyright rationale ([2], [3], [4]). It's not that these files are problematic in particular, but just that I'm not comfortable with these types of rationales, and so I chose long ago to simply avoid them as a matter of principle. Maybe @Alexis Jazz: would extend us the good fortune of looking them over. GMG ^talk 13:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GreenMeansGo. I appreciate your reviewing the photographs and knowing another expert to go to. It takes a village ;) SusunW (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Clindberg is way better at renewals. All three are from 1929-1933 newspapers. Those old newspapers never registered copyright IIRC, so if the photos were made by journalists/photographers who work for the newspaper they would be fine. (but.. were they?) - Alexis Jazz 15:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that UPenn has said that no daily newspapers from outside New York were renewed prior to 1946 issues. Their Oakland Tribune page has certain contributions renewed, but no whole issues, and the source newspaper says specifically that they are "Tribune photos". So that one seems to be OK. The third one of Brunschvicg, probably remove. The original source appears to be here, with a crop published in the U.S. newspaper. The original is by Thérèse Bonney (died 1978) and was taken 29 May, 1926. Bonney was an American, but sounds like she lived in Paris from 1919 or so for the rest of her life (though travelled as a photojournalist). She donated a bunch of her stuff to University of California Berkeley (her alma mater) among other places, and it seems as though that is the source of the original upload -- so publication history is tough. We do show the crop from a 1929 U.S. newspaper, but it's obviously not by their staff, and the story was on a French delegation to a conference in Berlin, so they probably obtained the photo from elsewhere, but not sure where. The French copyright will last until 2049. The U.S. copyright would have expired most likely at some point, but if first published in France (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) would have been restored in 1996 by the URAA and would expire again in 2022. But if it was originally published in the U.S., it's probably fine (as the renewal research shows). Not sure we know enough to keep it -- if country of origin is France, it's not OK. The second one of Valentine Thomson seems to come from an AP story marked "Paris" with no explicit photo credit. If that is the case, an AP photo, the lack of renewal of any one newspaper is meaningless. Only the Associated Press would have standing to renew. While it probably was not renewed, it could have been included in a yearly compilation book or something, so it's harder to search for. The searches don't mention looking for Associated Press. That one may be hard, even if the odds are it is OK. It could also be an existing foreign photo, but without any evidence I guess we should assume it's an AP-owned photo. It may be OK, but may be best to search for AP as well for those years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clindberg, thank you for your review. I note here that the research on Bonney's photo for the Class A Review, wherein Nikkimaria accepted only the version published in the Dayton Herald as in the PD only in the US. Thus, it was uploaded en.wp only, i.e. it is not in commons. I literally examined hundreds of articles about Brunschvicg in French newspapers and found no photographs of her at all, except the image from the Le Petit journal illustré, which is still under copyright in France. As for Thomson, I just did an advanced search with the Associated Press as claimant, for the keyword Valentine Thomson and received "Your search found no results". The same results for AP as claimant and Thomson as a personal name, for AP as an organization and Thomson as a keyword and personal name and Valentine Thompson as a keyword and personal name. I will update the commons information directly. Can you advise of next steps? SusunW (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was unaware of the earlier research. If the Bonney photo was indeed first published in that newspaper in 1929, then it's fine (or at least that crop is). That just felt unlikely though for it to be first published in that newspaper, especially coming from someone who did at least later sell her photos and was living in France and of a French subject. If it was available from a photo agency there, then it may have been "published" when made available by the photo agency, not necessarily when it showed up in print. But tracking down that information is probably impossible. In looking further, it seems as though With the Women of Today or With Women of Today was a byline by a Mrs. Lillian Campbell that shows up in a number of U.S. newspapers across the country, so it was probably published in many newspapers that week, not just the Dayton Herald. Can't find much other information. But, that does make it more possible that a generally national author may have obtained that photo privately from the photographer (or from Brunschvicg herself). Given that it was not widely circulated per your other research, I guess the best available info is that the 1929 version was the first publication, so it's reasonable to go with that. There would need to be a renewal in 1957 in that case for copyright to still exist. If someone can come up with further information, it could be re-evaluated then -- if an earlier French publication can be determined, the URAA would have restored the U.S. copyright regardless of the lack of renewal. But it wouldn't be valid many more years, either.

For the Thomson one, the newspaper article says it came from the Paris AP office, and was talking about an upcoming trip in a few days -- so the photo was not taken in the U.S., but probably was taken in France prior to the trip. Still, it could have been first published in the U.S. (or at least simultaneously). You are correct, I don't see "Associated Press" in 1960 or 1961 renewals volumes for either books or periodicals. They registered some new material but don't see any that was renewed. And even if France is the country of origin, for an anonymous photo, it would have been expired on the URAA date (at the time their term was 50 years from publication, possibly with the 8-year extension for WWII). OK, that one is probably fine either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clindberg, I honestly cannot say how much I appreciate your help, and only wish I had known of your expertise when the previous review was on-going. (I am hoping I may call on you from time to time when these types of issues come up, as I find it often requires talking through.) I also know that as you were pinged in blindly, there was no way you could have known of the previous work done on Bonney/Brunschvicg, thus why I added the link. You have pretty much summed up my thoughts, significant research has been done to investigate the copyright (by various people). It appears to meet the criteria for use, but if later new information comes to light, that can always be revised and/or the photo removed. SusunW (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thanks for looking over everything so thoroughly Carl. And good job on the article Susan. GMG ^talk 17:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GreenMeansGo I truly appreciate our collaborations on WP. (Note, 2 us no a.) SusunW (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. My bad. Force of habit. GMG ^talk 03:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty used to it, ;) no worries at all. SusunW (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Dr. Blofeld

Looks like this has already been well-reviewed and meets FA criteria. Great job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments

Looks like we are almost over the finish line, pending an image review and source review for formatting/reliability plus the normal spot-check for any potential close paraphrasing or verifiability issues. --Laser brain (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Laser brain, photo review is ongoing above and hopefully will soon be completed. I have asked a couple of people about the source review, (though I admit I have no idea what I am asking them to do, or the time involved). Both indicated that they are swamped with real life stuff right now, so I am being patient. SusunW (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I did a source review when I assessed this at GAN. I also did the source review for ACR. I would be prepared todo the - full, first timer's - source review here. However, I copy edited a fair bit both pre-ACR and pre-FAC. I have also offered some general advice and encouragement along the way. So you may feel that I am a bit close to it to provide a review. (I have deliberately not offered a general review at this stage.) However, outside of GAN and ACR I have not given any input on the sourcing.

I would appreciate your giving either a thumbs up or down on my doing the source review. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: If you'd have time to do the spot-check, that would be great! It doesn't have to be every source. I usually just grab and handful and if they all check out, no further work is needed. --Laser brain (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Where a source is a journal article, you need to give an identifier (an ISSN, JSTOR or similar - a kind of ISBN for journal articles). WorldCat is your friend for this. See here for the ISSN of the first I noticed, Cobble. (Scroll down for the ISSN: 0021-8723.) Note how both have been given for Finch; although only one is necessary.
Logan: the title should be in title case.
And Naldi
And Wiltsher
Likewise the translated, but not the original, title of Morant.
And Offen (2005)
Seigal is wrongly formatted. You need to use cite book and use "|chapter=" for the work.

Just the above minor bits and pieces.

Gog the Mild I have fixed all of these except Siegel. To my understanding this is not a chapter of the book, which I do not have. It was a paper delivered at a conference. Another editor found the link to the conference and try as we might, we were unable to find links to either Cobble or Siegel's presentations. I boldly wrote to them and asked if they would provide them. Cobble sent me the 3 published articles. Siegel agreed to send me her paper if I would note that it was excerpted from her book. When I agreed to do that, she sent me the paper. I have no idea how else I could cite the reference to adhere to our agreement and the fact that it did not come directly from the book, but from a paper presented at a conference. (I have actually ordered the book, but as the last book I ordered took 9 months to reach me here, I do not expect that I will receive it until sometime next year.) SusunW (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. If I understand you correctly, you have put yourself in a spot by promising to note that a conference paper was excerpted from a book, when, strictly, you don't actually know that it is. I now remember this coming up before. OK; the rules on formatting exist to serve a purpose, and this seems like a sound case for an exemption. Just the two spot check queries left. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to e-mail you the paper if need be. SusunW (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but not needed. All good.

Spot check

I did a certain amount of spot checking at both GAN and ACR. I shall now go through more thoroughly. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cite 103: Fine.
Cite 1: Fine.
Cite 65, a-e: Fine.
Cite 34, a-c: Fine. Is "Oliver Strachey" in the clipping the "Ray Strachey" in the article?

Yes, the "Mrs. Oliver Strachey" is Ray. "Ray Costelloe had met and become very attached to the Strachey family, to which she became formally connected through her marriage, on 31 May 1911, to Oliver Strachey"

Ah ah! Good. Thanks.

Cite 35, d: Fine.
Cite 98, a & b: Fine.
Cite 17: Some confusion? This doesn't fully support "A delegation of 80 French women led by Valentine Thomson, editor of La Vie Feminine". "80 delegates" and "led" are the issues.

Actually the problem was that adding sources to explain who Thomson was broke the citation to her leading 80 delegates. I have repaired the citations, which state "...in an address to a delegation of 80 French women...Mlle Valentine Thomson introduced the women..." SusunW (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had a quick search in the area, but managed to miss it

Cite 3: Fine.
Cite 91, a & b: Fine.
Cite 90, a & b: Fine.

A couple of queries above from the spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I have rarely seen such a broad range of sources and perspectives. Probably every statement in the article could be cited to three different sources from the bibliography. The sources referred to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them, see above. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

No doubt Laser brain will be along shortly to give due consideration to the comments of the various reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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