Talk:Inter-Allied Women's Conference/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 16:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Marguerite de Witt-Schlumberger.jpg licencing. If the author is unknown, on what basis is it claimed that they have been dead for 70 years. (Once this is resolved, the image also needs a USPD tag).
 * ✅ (well mostly if someone can add the correct template for US) Public domain because the author(s) died more than 70 years ago and did not benefit from any copyright extension, or it is an anonymous, pseudonymous or collective work and more than 70 years have passed since its publication. I have zero idea of what "template" to use for the US, but the answer to the question is it was published outside the US prior to 1923, i.e. 1919. Okay, I figured out the template.SusunW (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Jane Brigode, c. 1910.jpg - USPD tag. ✅ published in the US. SusunW (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And Le Petit journal illustré Cecile Brunschwig.jpg ✅ published anonymously in France more than 70 years ago SusunW (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Margery Fry by her brother Roger Fry (died over 70 years ago).jpg Not sure about this one. Maybe can help? I'll give that Roger died more than 70 years ago (1866-1934), but according to this, for the UK it hinges on whether or not it was published (Does exhibiting a commissioned work constitute publication? It was commissioned in 1931.) If the photo cannot be used, I found this image, made by the staff of The Oakland Tribune and confirmed on Copyright.gov that the paper has no renewals for articles or images published before 1978. Thus is eligible for  SusunW (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ swapped out photo for this page only. SusunW (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Nicole Girard-Mangin (1878-1919).jpg I don't speak French, so this one is harder. It was obviously clipped from press about a book that was published in 2011, but appears to be part of a "Collection privée Famille Mangin-Wachet - Pathé Gaumont" (private family collection). From the partial image of the video, there is no way to tell if a photographer is cited. I looked on the National Library of France page and could only find one image, p 126 which was clearly published in 1916, but I have no idea what the text says and whether it attributes it to an author. But it might be an alternative to the first photo. Perhaps can help? SusunW (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Sorry, can't help with this except to mention that the Gallica image appears to have been taken by M Gebelin, director of Hôpital Edith Cavell.--Ipigott (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I strongly suspect the director was Madeleine (née Gebelin) Brès, but I cannot prove that. Again, my problem with French, not sure how to search. If it is her, clearly usable, as she died in 1921. SusunW (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * She's the one. See here.--Ipigott (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Great! Thanks Ian, swapped out image for the one by Gebelin. SusunW (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Avril de Sainte-Croix.jpg The National Library of France states clearly (press on the "i" (detailed information link) that "Rights: public domain". I cannot read any of the French on the page, which perhaps would give us better information on why it is. Seems to me that the current tag, "faithful photographic reproduction of a work of art" is the incorrect tag, as it appears to be "a photograph", not a photograph of art. Maybe Ian can help here too? SusunW (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC) The photograph was taken by Henri Manuel who died in 1947. So no problem here.--Ipigott (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good to go on this one, I'll tag it. Can you look at Verone below? ✅ SusunW (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Maria-verone.jpg Cannot determine where or when this image was published. There are images like this one which featured La Fronde or this one which is already in commons taken by Agence Mondial. My preference would probably be the first one, because it seems likely to reflect what she might have looked like at the time of the conference, rather than the one taken in the 1930s. Thoughts, Ian? SusunW (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Swapped out the image for one with clearer copyright. SusunW (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Զապէլ Եսայեան.jpg. Here too, I do not speak Armenian. If we AGF the tag on the photo that it is in the public domain because the Ottoman Empire was dissolved in 1923, then per the general rules it is in the PD of the US. I tagged it with Advise if this is insufficient. SusunW (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And I think I found a group photo I can use while looking for info on these. Will keep you posted. SusunW (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. Made by the War Department and published in 1919, clearly PD. SusunW (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought I had woken up this morning until the first thing I read was "Maybe Victuallers can help? I'll give that Roger died more than 70 years ago". ... oh dear! ... Roger a.k.a. Victuallers (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * More seriously - a useful tag is "Anonymous-EU" which is useful for any of the 26 country's newspapers where that picture you want is not attributed, or there is evidence that some effort has been found to find a photographer of a "found" image. Victuallers (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies for disturbing your breakfast with your obit ;) . Clearly, I was far too focused on not confusing which Fry. The problem is that I cannot find any publication of the painting on-line. It may exist, but from Mexico, my search sources are limited. I think what I shall do for the immediate is use the newspaper one I know is okay for commons in this article. SusunW (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we have addressed your issues with the photos, but if not, please advise. SusunW (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi SusunW, I have put off reviewing your changes for now, and moved to the next stage of the review. I shall come back to them. Nice group photo BTW.


 * I totally get it and yes, some of the photos were better before, but now we have more to chose from whose licensing is clear. Fortunately, I have people I can ask, as photos are muy difícil. SusunW (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, I tend to answer things and work on resolutions piecemeal. And yes, I was happy to find that group photo, which I might not have done had I not been trying to find out if the others had been published. (It also made me aware that my newspaperarchive account had been suspended again, which is a regular occurrence because of my location. *sigh* But, it's being fixed.) SusunW (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I have made some copy edits as I have gone through. If there is anything you are not happy with, don't hesitate to flag it up here.


 * Is the article written in British English?
 * Not really, but most of the documents about the official Peace Conference are. To keep committee names, organizations, etc. consistent with them, we used the British spelling. If we need to make it all British English for consistency, we can do that. SusunW (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Great! I would've had to ask Ian ;) SusunW (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Though the Inter-Allied Women were denied many of their aims" Seems a little POV to me; perhaps '... failed to achieve ...'
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "it is significant that their efforts marked the first time" Genuine question, do you mean ' it is significant in that their efforts marked the first time ...'?
 * yes, genuine answer. ✅ SusunW (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "The consequences of World War I were profound: four empires fell, numerous countries were created or regained independence, and significant changes were made to the political, cultural, economic, and social climate of the world." While I am personally in full agreement with this, you need to cite it. A check shows that it is not covered by either of the cites in the first paragraph.
 * Cited to Carruther's intro in Kreisler ✅ SusunW (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "As world leaders prepared to gather for negotiations to draft armistice terms" I may be wrong, but I understood that armistices were already in place and they were meeting to negotiate peace terms.
 * changed text to read "draft peace terms after the armistice" ... ✅ SusunW (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * great. I moved the s outside the brackets so the link works ;) SusunW (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (I had meant to check that, but clearly didn't.


 * "the lack of any women's political agency" Optional: this seems potentially ambiguous to me. Possibly 'the lack of any political representation for women'?
 * Hmmm, to my mind agency, having the independence to make your own choices, is not remotely the same as representation. Women didn't lack men who promised they would present issues that were important to women, but they lacked the ability to control their own narrative and presentation of it. I linked agency, as I did in this comment. Does that help? SusunW (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that language and changed it to your text. ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "they had fought alongside" I am aware that there were numerous cases of this, but baldly stated this is close to misleading, IMO.
 * Would you prefer ... though some had fought alongside and many provided support ...? SusunW (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me.
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "to organizations in all Allied Nations" Why the upper case N?
 * Because to my mind it is a title. The Allies, Allied Nations, Allied Powers is routinely capitalized to distinguish that it is speaking of war alliances and not just some other aligned groups.SusunW (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would differ, but I see your logic and it's your nom, so fine.


 * "to address concerns of women and children." This seems a little odd to me. I would have thought that it should be either 'to address the concerns of women and children.' or 'to address concerns regarding women and children.'
 * I've changed it to "the" but to my mind that is limiting. Simply using concerns means any concerns at all. "The" concerns like the book is more specific, whereas regarding seems to limit it to only issues that effected women and children, which was clearly not the case. They were concerned with issues on a broad spectrum which impacted society as a whole. ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "By the middle of the month, on 18 March," One of those clauses is redundant.
 * Used the specific date ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "chair" Really? I am prepared to believe you, but it seems anachronistic.
 * The source says "On March 18 the Commission on International Labour Legislation of the Peace Conference, presided over by Mr. Samuel Gompers" (p 89), which is the equivalent of chairing a meeting. SusunW (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In 1919 a chair was a piece of furniture and the person presiding over a meeting was a chairman, regarless of their sex. However, as you are writing in 2019 and the source doesn't directly contradict you, that's fine.
 * :) SusunW (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Though he made promises to include women, they were unfulfilled." Suggestion: 'they were to be unfulfilled.'
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "also undertook jobs soldiers could not do" Purely to satisfy my curiosity, does the source give any examples?
 * It says "women worn out with the work of absent men". To make it clearer in the text, I modified it to ...jobs soldiers, who were away fighting, could not do... Is that sufficient? SusunW (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me.


 * "Representatives of the Women for Permanent Peace renamed the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom at the Zürich conference, incorporated many of the ideals of the Inter-Allied Women's Conference in the "Woman's Charter", which they eventually adopted." I don't really follow this. Do you mean that the Women for Permanent Peace renamed themselves the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom? (It may just be that there is a comma missing after "Peace".)
 * ✅ I put ...renamed the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom at the Zürich conference... in parenthesis.


 * "the passage of international labour standards for maternity," Being a little pedantic, is there a word (or words) missing here? 'pay' or 'rights' or 'leave' or whatever.
 * Good catch. Per source "recommendation of twelve weeks of paid maternity leave (six weeks before and six weeks after birth)" ... Added leave ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Perestroika" Why the upper case P? PS, and shouldn't it be in italics, as a foreign language word?
 * ✅ (also changed glasnost similarly) SusunW (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "As the heirs" The heirs of whom?
 * This is kind of complicated, but under French law, the stolen items had to be repatriated to the families of the people who created the documents. The source says "Les petits-enfants et arrière-petits-enfants ont décidé de ne pas garder les archives et de les déposer dans des centres d'archives." (The grandchildren and great-grandchildren decided not to keep the archives and to deposit them in central archives). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was responsible for identifying the owners/creators and heirs. Feel free to suggest text, as the "heirs of the owners of the documents" sounds very awkward to me. SusunW (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Bleh! You are right. I can live with what you have, but would suggest you consider 'It was determined that a public archive would be beneficial and the ...'
 * My husband is brilliant, he suggested "heirs of the feminists" So I incorporated that with your text, i.e. "It was determined by the heirs of the feminists that a public archive would be beneficial and ... ✅ SusunW (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Siegel's presentation, In the Drawing Rooms of Paris: The Inter-Allied Women's Conference of 1919, was excerpted from Peace on Our Terms: The Global Battle for Women's Rights After the First World War (Columbia University Press, 2019)." Interesting, but IMO fails GA criteria 3b. Ie, should be deleted.
 * Again, this is complicated. Tagishsimon found a link to the conference wherein Siegel and Cobble presented their papers. I could find no publication that was done for the conference papers, so I looked up both professors and e-mailed them simply asking if they could provide them. Cobble e-mailed me several published sources she had written on the subject. Siegel agreed to send me her paper if I would note that it was excerpted from the book. I've moved it to the reference, i.e. "excerpted from ...". Does that work? SusunW (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That works fine for me. I can see that you are in a difficult position if that was a condition of your access tot he material. I noted the way you were amending the reference before I read this and thought it was an unusual style, but now I understand. It can't really go in the article; at a push you could footnote it, but how you have it is fine.

What a great article. Fascinating and educational. I had been smacking myself on the forehead for being ignorant of all this until I got to your last paragraph. Sound work. Some initial thoughts above. I hope that this one is targeted at FA.

Re the images, I sympathise. I suspect I am, rhetorically, only a few lines ahead of you in my learning curve, and have recently been getting frustrated over assessors' requirements for some of my nominations. When I go through, if I can tidy up any remaining issues myself, I shall.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * A fine and thorough piece of work, well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Can I suggest that you nominate it for an A class review at MilHist, with a view of working it towards FA status?


 * Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! I loved writing this one and collaborating on it. As WiR is focusing on suffrage as a year-long project, I discovered it quite by accident while trying to create a redlist of prominent suffragists whose articles needed improvement. Then when Tagishsimon found the conference and the professors were so generous to send materials, I was hooked. Having already written about the looted Dutch feminist archive, I immediately picked up on Siegel's mention of the return of the documents. I have no earthly idea how to "nominate it for an A class review" or do a FA. SusunW (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * SusunW. Moving to your talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)