Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emmeline Pankhurst


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 23:07, 25 October 2008.

Emmeline Pankhurst

 * Nominator(s): Scartol  •  Tok 

I've expanded and polished this article about Britain's most controversial suffragette over the past two months, and I believe it's in a very respectable state. Many thanks to and  for their peer reviews, and  for checking sources. Thanks also go out to assorted editors who have cleaned up the British English along the way. Scartol •  Tok  22:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From DYK to FAC in 4 days? Nice...  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I'm not keen on "two pairs of women." Can we change it to something like "C. and her two sisters"?
 * Changed to: "The family rift was never healed". Scartol  •  Tok  12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not keen on "he kept a note before him"
 * Changed to "he kept a note nearby during meetings". Scartol  •  Tok  12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "woman so respected in the community." I must have missed the bit that foreshadowed this statement about popularity
 * Added a bit earlier in the section to clarify. Scartol  •  Tok  12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Around the time of their father's death, the identities of .." OK so later in the article the children become an integral part Emmeline's life. When I read this paragraph, though, I wondered why an entire para was devoted to family members...
 * I think it's fair to say that (with a few extreme exceptions) every woman's children are integral parts of her life. (The same is true about most, but alas not all, men.) I added another sentence: "Before long they were all involved in the struggle for women's suffrage." Scartol  •  Tok  12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence" her introduction is sudden and unexplained; she is apparently a prominent member of the org., but we do not learn that until later.
 * In the sixth paragraph of the first WSPU section, it states: She also insisted that a small committee chosen by the members in attendance be allowed to coordinate WSPU activities. Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel were chosen (along with Mabel Tuke and Emmeline Pethick Lawrence) as members of the new committee. Since this is the first area where we introduce members of the group aside from the Pankhursts, it seems to make sense that this would be the proper spot to introduce EPL also.
 * I intentionally left out more info about Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence, Keir Hardie, and other folks important to the WSPU because I didn't want the focus to drift from Mrs. Pankhurst. I feel that more info on EPL would be better suited to the WSPU article. Scartol  •  Tok  12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 11:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback and attention to detail! Scartol  •  Tok  12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * It's showing up in the Category:Articles with unsourced statements so it's got a fact tag lurking somewhere. I couldn't find it though.
 * Yeah, I meant to fix that earlier. The CN tag was in a paragraph which had a citation at the end, but apparently we needed to repeat the citation for that challenged sentence. Fixed. Scartol  •  Tok  14:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - (Disclaimer: I recently peer-reviewed this.) This is a well-written, well-researched, and well-illustrated biography of an important suffragist/suffragette. :) The article made for fascinating reading and included enough historical background that readers unfamiliar with the women's suffrage movement could follow the narrative of Pankhurst's life. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: I also participated at the PR and happen to agree with everything Awadewit wrote above. This is a truly comprehensive biography about a truly important and complex woman.  I had a lot of fun reading it, and am certain future readers will feel the same.  María ( habla  con migo ) 17:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - very nice. Long, but the writing is engaging enough to carry the length. You do need to decide on her name though. We have Emmeline, Pankhurst, Emmeline Pankhurst and the corresponding set for the Gouldens. This is particular confusing when she is recently married and referred to as just Pankhurst, and often gives the impression that another figure is being talked about (as in The BBC dramatised her life in the 1974 miniseries Shoulder to Shoulder, with Welsh actor Siân Phillips in the role of Emmeline Pankhurst.) A few more pronouns would help remove such awkward phrasing as that seen in "Emmeline Goulden's parents" etc. Good work. Yomangani talk 18:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I've tried to clean this up as best I could. As I've discussed with, I've had trouble with names in biographies – take Chinua Achebe. In the later sections, it's easy to refer to him as simply "Achebe". When discussing his childhood, however, there are obviously other Achebes in the text. With articles about women (thanks to patriarchal family-naming conventions in our society) it's even more complicated. (It seems weird to refer to her as "Emmeline Pankhurst" when her name was still Goulden. And even more complicated when referring to her autobiography, written when she was Pankhurst about her life as a child named Goulden!) I've tried to adjust this article so that she's Emmeline Goulden before her marriage, and "Pankhurst" afterwards. Scartol  •  Tok  19:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At some point we need to all sit down and come up with some good guidelines on how to handle maiden names vs. married names. The currently guidelines at MOS:BIO only scratch the surface of the problem. There are lots of situations where the proper course of action is anything but clear. Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article has two leads. The first paragraph is a summary of the entire article, then the next 3 paragraphs are a longer summary. The first paragraph is not supposed to be a super-summary; it should function merely to establish context about the subject of the article - who was this person and why are they important? The specifics about her founding the WSPU, disagreements with her daughters, etc, should be moved out of the first paragraph and into the rest of the lead (or removed if they are redundant). The lead in general is also a bit lengthy. For example, I would cut the sentence "The former had withdrawn voluntarily, while the latter was dismissed by Christabel." We don't need that much detail in the lead. Kaldari (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the lead; hopefully it's more succinct and fluid now. Scartol  •  Tok  19:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a nice improvement, although the following sentence is problematic: "She became known for her advocacy of vandalism and property destruction, and her work is recognised as a crucial element in achieving women's suffrage in Britain." This sentence makes it sound like her advocacy of vandalism was a crucial element in achieving women's suffrage, which I don't think is quite what you intended. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I decided to try my hand at it and ended up with: "Although widely criticised for her militant tactics, her work is recognised as a crucial element in achieving women's suffrage in Britain." How does that sound? Also, is my British spelling correct? Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. As for BrEnglish, don't ask me! =) We've had a generous stream of folks coming by and adding Us to the the colours. Scartol  •  Tok  00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Support - The article is FA quality for sure. Though I think info should be added to improve it, it can be done whenever I can get the ifno to Scartol. Having some difficulty doing that... --Moni3 (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Scartol, this is beautifully written, and I was particularly moved coming off a protest-themed article myself. Reading this one made me think WikiProject:Protest is in order. However, I have some questions about the content.
 * Pankhurst immediately began working to change these conditions, and established herself as a successful voice of reform on the Board of Guardians. Her chief opponent was a passionate man named Mainwaring, known for his rudeness. Recognizing that his loud anger was hurting his chances of persuading those aligned with Pankhurst, he kept a note nearby during meetings: "Keep your temper! There seems to be something missing here, such as Mainwaring's reason for opposing Pankhurst and suffrage. Actually, what I didn't see in the article is the rhetoric of the other side. Why did they feel women's didn't deserve to vote? (Yes, I know, but perhaps it's good that it's puzzling for people to read this and think, "Well why shouldn't women be able to vote?") Similarly, although the protests are described in wonderful detail, the reaction of the government other than police harassment isn't included. Surely those in power dug in further, steadfastly refusing to agree to cow to tactics such as arson and acid-burning in their golf courses. Do you have access to editorials, responses, treatises on why women should not vote or reactions to Mrs. Pankhurst's tactics in particular?
 * The biographies really don't discuss these responses (aside from occasional criticism in the media and the noted unwillingness of officials to meet with her). There is a paragraph in the article detailing press coverage, but I haven't gone looking for anti-suffragist views (which would take quite a bit of work to find, I expect) because I didn't want the focus to stray from Mrs. Pankhurst. I feel that adding too much of that broader historical context would inflate the already large size of the article. Perhaps it would be better suited for the article on the WSPU or women's suffrage in general.
 * As for Mainwaring: Women's suffrage wasn't an issue among the Board of Guardians. The paragraph in question starts with "these conditions", a reference to the quote from Mrs. Pankhurst's autobiography and descriptions of the workhouses she investigated. Perhaps that needs to be made more clear? (The reasons he opposed her proposed reforms aren't clear; presumably he was in league with those profiting from the meagre conditions of the workhouses.)  Scartol  •  Tok  16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think an essential element of a biography for a formidable protester is what the subject had to overcome. I have access to a book (just searched for it) titled Literature of the women's suffrage campaign in England Chapter 1: THE ARGUMENTS. THE CASE AGAINST WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE: Harriet Taylor and John Stuart Mill, from " Enfranchisement of women " found here. Are you interested? I just copied, scanned, and emailed a few pages from another source for Mike Christie. I'd be more than happy to do the same for you. I'm not saying an entire section should be added, but a few sentences that describe the prevalent thought Pankhurst and her colleagues were up against.
 * I'll never turn down an offer of getting free reference materials. =) I don't have a problem adding some more info about the political context. But I would point out that Pankhurst wasn't really struggling against the points made by Mill and others; she was mostly trying to overcome the intransigence of elected officials who professed to support women's suffrage but didn't take the necessary action. So in a way discussing the arguments against women's suffrage might be misplaced in this article. What do other folks think? Scartol  •  Tok  17:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Winston Churchill; his defeat was in part attributed to "those ladies who are sometimes laughed at" who attributed this? Churchill himself?
 * His opponent. Clarified. Scartol  •  Tok  16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 *  and – especially – her father. The punctuation of this looks odd. I know you're trying to emphasize it...but...I dunno
 * Yeah, that was messy. Changed to: "...a betrayal of her family (especially her father) and the movement." Scartol  •  Tok  16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Any leader who inspires followers to put themselves in harm's way, in prison, or commit acts of destruction or violence must have strong influence or charisma. How was Pankhurst able to do this, or was she simply one of many women who did the same (yet if she was, I suppose her portrait and sculpture would not be so necessary)? Have any of her biographers addressed her methods of getting hundreds of women to follow her?
 * Aside from a general agreement that she was charismatic, no. The best I could do is add descriptions of people listening raptly to her speeches, but I feel that the article already contains some of these (and I'm always worried about looking sycophantic). Scartol  •  Tok  16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Though I haven't seen the movie in more than 10 years, I believe I could right now belt out "Sister Suffragettes" from Mary Poppins. Now it's stuck in my head. "Well done!" Actually, Glynis Johns enraptured with Mrs. Pankhurst's chaining herself to the prime minister's carriage is an underappreciated Disney film moment, in my opinion. --Moni3 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too! "We're clearly soldiers in petticoats! / Dauntless crusaders for women's votes!" :) Awadewit (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, now you've done it; I had to go and look it up because I'm too lazy to find my DVD. All together, now! "Our daughters' daughters will adore us, and they'll sing in grateful chorus: 'Well done, Sister Suffragette!'" María ( habla  con migo ) 22:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, wait, wait! I demand an "Emmeline Pankhurst in popular culture" section with a reference to this song! :) Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it was in the version I replaced. I expect to see it added in again soon. Would you all hate me if I said I'd never heard the song before? I'll respond to your suggestions soon, Moni.. Right now I'm off to dinner. Scartol  •  Tok  00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See? Scartol  •  Tok  00:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Two problems:
 * There are 8 or so citations to Purvis where it is unclear which book is being cited (there are two in the references).
 * I see you added "2002" to the remaining Purvis citations. Does that mean that the other Purvis book Votes for Women is completely uncited in the article? Should it be kept in the References? Also since Holton was the coeditor, it might be worth clarifying which book is cited in the other Holton citations as well (since she has two books in the list). Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I didn't end up using that second Purvis book, but I certainly consulted it a lot. =) I think it makes sense to keep it in the References, since it contains speeches and writings of Pankhurst, and I can see someone referring to it in the future. (If you want, I can find some way to work it in, heh.) Scartol  •  Tok  17:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The style of British English used in the article is not 100% consistent. In at least 3 instances I've noticed, Oxford spelling is used (democratize, recognize, recognizing), and in most other cases regular British spelling is used (recognise, criticise, chastise, etc.). Also complicating the matter is the fact that one of the Oxford spellings is in a quote attributed to Pankhurst. Although I personally prefer the use of Oxford spelling in British articles, I'll leave the decision up to Scartol as the principle(?) author. Kaldari (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Americanized spellings in Pankhurst quotes come from her autobiography, of which I am using the edition published in the US. My guess is that they used the spellings most common to the US audience.
 * We've had numerous editors (including and ) go through to check the British English. As people keep adding and changing things, the spelling goes wacky, I suppose. I've tried to find any stray non-British spelling. I'm doing my best to keep it all in one variety, but – again – I'm a slack-jawed Yankee living in the 'States and I'm not very good at this stuff. Many thanks to those who have helped unify the English.
 * It's principal. Just for future reference. =) Scartol  •  Tok  17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment "as expected" by whom? And is "room mate" still in there? is that the British sp.? I was very happy with the comments of other reviewers above. I had to read very quickly during my first run-through, and was coming back to check more carefully now.. but other reviewers above said things that were drifitng around in the formless bog I call my mind. Good job. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 02:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the whole world expected Sylvia's book to be acidic and nasty, and Christabel's to be glowing and effusive with praise. But since we don't have any surveys or hard data to back this up, I suppose it's best to take it out. (Done.) I believe added some hyphens and separations for compound words; I defer to him on such matters, as he has established himself as something of an expert on British English.  Scartol  •  Tok  17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Indeed as was said above, this is quite an excellent article and sound in terms of the way it is written and content. Very resourceful in terms of the variety of sources used. Covers all aspects of her life, the way in which many of her familial relationships where addressed really is top notch. My only quabble would be that is could be made a little more concise towards the middle of the article where is discusses the WSPU. One of the paragraphs was not as easy to comprehend as the rest of the article and in parts seemed to move a little out of focus. I would suggest trying to improve the WSPU section a little for comprehension in relation to her biography. This is only minor though and the article was a pleasure to read. Well done Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what paragraph you're referring to. Could you specify? Thanks. Scartol  •  Tok  01:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The prose still needs a little shining. Please don't let our enthusiasm for this important article over ride our first FA criterion. Graham Colm Talk 18:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your attention to detail. I'm not sure I agree that it's necessary to avoid present-participles at all costs. Is that considered a violation of criterion 1a? In at least one instance, such a change alters the meaning: Pankhurst immediately began working to change these conditions... is needed, because she wasn't able to change these conditions straightaway. But she did begin working to make the change happen. Any other spots you feel are in need of review? Scartol  •  Tok  03:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I was a bit disappointed at the lack of images of Pankhurst herself, especially considering how many great public domain images of her are available. Being bold, I replaced the image of Millicent Fawcett with an action shot of Pankhurst being jeered by a crowd in New York. Hope you think it's an improvement :) Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks good. I was worried about having too many images of her (lest it signify idolatry and I be accused of POV). In terms of iconography, I'd say these pictures of her being arrested in 1914 are perhaps the most universal; they grace the covers of two EP biographies. Might one of those be more fitting? Scartol  •  Tok  00:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to worry about having too many pictures of Pankhurst in her article. Check out Babe Ruth's article! I'm disappointed, though, that so many of the images of Pankhurst on Commons are such poor quality. Maybe I can track someone down that has a Getty Images account. I love the photo of her being carried by the policeman. I also like the photo of her speaking to the crowd though. I think it would make a nice visual narrative to use both if possible. Kaldari (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still working on getting a high-res version of the arrest photo. Kaldari (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, take your pick: Image:Emmeline_Pankhurst_arrested.jpg or Image:Emmeline_Pankhurst_arrested_2.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the second one. Thanks for digging these up, K! Scartol  •  Tok  18:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also adjusted the levels on that "Pankhurst in prison" image, so it doesn't look completely washed out. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it may be for naught. Stupid British copyright laws! Kaldari (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we use one under WP:NFCC as an example of Emmeline Pankhurst's action or a significant moment in her life? -Malkinann (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's technically possible, but given the lower-quality but not-too-different free options available, I just don't think it makes much sense. Besides, there are plenty of other pictures of Mrs. Pankhurst available. Scartol  •  Tok  00:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - for a beautifully written, comprehensive and engaging article. I feel I should say more as this is not a vote, so I suggest "room mate" should be one word. Apart from this, I have nothing but praise for this superb contribution. Graham Colm Talk 18:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hyde Park is showing up in the dab linker checker in the toolbox. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Sorry about that! Scartol  •  Tok  11:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.