Wikipedia:Peer review/Mud March (suffragists)/archive1

Mud March (Suffragists)
The Mud March (Suffragists) article is a rather appropriate PR entry for International Women's Day. It was a small event, largely overlooked by history, but it was an important step by the suffragists, taken to raise its public profile in the face of the high-publicity events of the militant suffragettes. This article has been reworked and rewritten from its previous version and several new images have been obtained from the newspapers of the time. Brianboulton has undertaken about 98% of the work on this and I've been annoying and pestering him to make up the remaining 2%. Nevertheless, we would both appreciate any comments you have to make. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * (Just to get the record straight: SchroCat did all the groundwork, including locating many of the essential sources. It's true I ended up doing most of the writing, but his initiative and input were vital to the development of the article.) Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick comments
 * Per Manual_of_Style/Layout, generally we wouldn't create an EL section just for the Commons template
 * ODNB should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * These attended to. Thanks, Nikki. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding File:Philippa_Strachey_in_1921_(cropped).jpg, see National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute for some context. In short, if this is public domain in the US, we can use it. Is there any reason to think it would be? Was it ever published before being digitized by the NPG? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Nikki. I'm not aware that the image has been published, and it does not appear to fulfil the US-PD criteria. I will remove the image until its PD status can be satisfactorily established. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we know when it was digitized? Would it fit PD-US-unpublished? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891
 * "It was the largest public demonstration supporting woman's suffrage seen up to that date, in which women from all classes participated." This confuses me. Was it the largest based on number of marchers? The largest that women from all classes participated in? If the latter is so, some clarification may be apt, as to me it reads "It was the largest public demonstration supporting woman's suffrage seen up to that date. Women from all classes participated."
 * Point taken - prose revised. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "Accordingly, the NUWSS executive" is this NUWSS executive a person with a name? I might list them if so.
 * No, "executive committee". Clarified (but I'm reconsidering "devised")


 * "talked out" Link to Filibuster?
 * Done Brianboulton (talk)


 * "The march, and its successors, showed the world that the fight for women's suffrage was not confined to the strident minority often caricatured in the press, but had the support of women in every stratum of society, who despite their social differences were capable of uniting and working together for a common cause." This's a grand sentence, and perhaps too grand.
 * It very much represents what the sources say. I'll delete the words "the world" to make it ever so slightly less grand. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "including those of many leading women educationists and social reformers, including Emily Davies, Josephine Butler and Elizabeth Garrett." The using of including twice in such close proximity seems awkward.
 * Agreed, amended. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "with such panache and skill" Again, you seem to be delving almost out of NPOV.
 * And again, I'd say, in accordance with the sources, but I've replaced with "so effectively". Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "the Women's Liberal Federation vetoed the idea because of the WPSU's attacks on the Liberal government, and refused to participate in the march if the militants were included." Perhaps rephrase to "the Women's Liberal Federation refused to participate in the march if the militants were included because of the WPSU's attacks on the Liberal government."
 * Your wording adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * more to come. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Eddie and I look forward to more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Tim
"No shipwrecks and nobody drowning, In fact nothing to laugh at at all". Are you two losing your touch? In this article nobody is drowned, squashed, suffocated or shot. I suppose a few may have died of a severe chill. But to be appropriately serious, this is a splendid article and I can offer very few suggestions, of no great consequence jointly or severally.
 * Lead
 * To me "awful" is too informal a word for an encyclopaedia article. It is a little subjective: "exceptionally wet" or some such would be more objective
 * And we never, ever, in any circumstances have "weather conditions": we just have weather. (Here and in "Aftermath and consequences", in the main text.)
 * While the march failed immediately to influence – creaky prose – very obviously trying to avoid a split infinitive. Be bold and split, I say (and, more to the point so does Fowler)!
 * All agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Historical perspective
 * "attempt to embody the petition's demands into the Second Reform Act 1867" – that sent me to the dictionary. I had never seen the verb used transitively before, but the OED gives it a passing nod. I'm not sure about its accompanying preposition: "in" would seem to me more natural than "into" here.
 * "London's Conduit Street" – this construction always strikes me as having a tabloidese air (quite apart from the question whether it matters for present purposes which street the building was in).
 * "the Liberal Party won an overwhelming general election victory" – I have no comment to make here: I just enjoyed typing the words.
 * "Many considered this as a mandate on the new Liberal administration" – a mandate "on"? The preposition is a bit unexpected. And in passing I question whether many considered it a mandate, as the term, and to a considerable extent the concept it represented, had only just come into use in a political sense.
 * Again done, except the last. The word "mandate" may not have been in widespread use in 1907, but it was certainly known to the spokeswoman who wrote to the MG: "Surely here is a mandate to warrant immediate nd decisive action". Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Organisation
 * "the northern urban conurbations" – can one have rural conurbations?
 * No indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 9 February
 * "Arthur Balfour, the former Conservative prime minister" – he was a former prime minister but not a former Conservative.
 * Pedantically, perhaps. But in this case, "Conservative" is part of a compound noun formation, "Conservative prime minister", not an independent adjective. The alternative, "the Conservative former prime minister", does not sound at all right. In our own era, Tony Blair is routinely referred to as the "former Labour prime minister", not as the "Labour former prime minister".  Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Former Labour former prime minster" would be more appropriate for TB... – SchroCat (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "As they made their way up Piccadilly" – already blue linked in the main text.
 * "Ladies Lyceum Club" – no possessive apostrophe?
 * "On reaching Trafalgar Square" – another blue link we've already had in the main text
 * "on the same basis of men" – "on the same basis as men"?
 * "according to the Daily Mail – but earlier The Observer differently capitalised and piped.
 * This reference to the DM has been removed. The other minor fixes all made. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Press coverage
 * The Times could be blue-linked here, its first mention.

Those are my meagre gleanings. I much enjoyed this article, and look forward to seeing it at FAC.  Tim riley  talk    11:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tim, for your comments. I am sorry you view SchroCat and myself as the Wikipedian equivalents of the Brothers Grimm, and will try to find more elevating subjects in the future. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for all who commented. As there have been many changes since we opened this, we're going to close now for a spell while further tweaks and edits are done. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)