Talk:Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919

Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 5, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 22, 2006.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 made broad and sweeping changes to women's rights in the United Kingdom, allowing women to enter the professions or serve on juries?

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 23, 2017, December 23, 2019, and December 23, 2022.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old discussions[edit]

Open query: What is the purpose of the square-bracketed additions to the quote at the top of the page? It doesn't seem to me to add any clarity. Rcrowdy 19:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original version I was quoting didn't have those words in; I'm assuming it was a condensed version of the text in order to save space, as these were abstracts of Acts and not the Acts themselves. "...admission to incorporated society or serving as juror" looks ungrammatical, to me at least, so I interpolated the words to make it make more sense. Shimgray | talk | 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a more complete version of s.1.

In addition, Halsbury's Laws refers to a case before Nagle v. Fielden in which the Act was invoked to overrule an local Act which required a committee (appointed to manage a town garden) to consist of "male inhabitant householders" (Re Edwardes Square Garden Committee, Smith v Mitchell (1934) 51 TLR 35). I have also found a reference to the Act in a 1923 case, in which the termination of employment contracts of certain married women teachers was upheld as not being contrary to the Act (Price v Rhondda UDC [1923] 2 Ch 372). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the current "residue" of s1 looks like - is it just everything up to "public function"? As to the other reports, it appears both Lord Justice Salmon and Francis Bennion were wrong! Still quite underused, though. Thanks for looking it up - I'm stuck without access to Halsbury &c. Shimgray | talk | 17:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of s.1 includes all of the currently quoted text, up to the part in square brackets (and I that bit from the amending Act which removed it). The other amending Acts just remove a portion without setting out the full text, and I have no access to an original version of the 1919 Act.

I forgive Salmon LJ and Bennion - it was quite hard to search cases for statutory citations in 1966 or even 1979, without today's electronic resources. I wonder when the note was added to Halsbury. We could correct them here, but I have not read the full text of the decisions yet to see whether they actually consider the Act. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review[edit]

I think the article is fairly good, but it needs some work for me to pass it as a Good Article:

Structure- The article should have a Background, Provisions, Use of (or Applications), validity/history/controversy, and perhaps a future/significance section.
Once organized better, the article needs a longer intro that briefly covers the entire text of the article. In other words, the intro should provide a brief overview of the entire article in one or two paragraphs.
Which sections of the act have been repealed?
Please look at Parliament Acts to see an example of a well-written and organized article on this type of subject. Cla68 07:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been five days without any improvements made to the article so I'm going to fail it for GA based on the reasons listed above. CLA 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]