Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Inter-Allied Women's Conference

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Inter-Allied Women's Conference[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): SusunW (talk)

Inter-Allied Women's Conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Gog the Mild, who did the GA review suggested the article might benefit from the process. Having never nominated an article for A-class, it will be a learning experience for me. (Note, I am not remotely technically oriented. Technical fixes, which might be needed, need to be explained step by step, please. The extremely-noisy/damaged group photograph is being restored by Adam Cuerden, though it may take some time to complete that process. Also, should Cobble or Siegel's reference materials be needed, I can e-mail them upon request). SusunW (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: G'day, Susun, welcome to Milhist ACR. Thank you for your efforts. I've only taken a quick look as this isn't a topic I know enough about to make too many comments, I'm sorry. I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure if the surname is... --> "It is uncertain whether the participant's surname was..."
  • official records of the conference[21] and.... --> suggest adding a comma before "[21]"
  • and saw "female self-determination as the corollary of the democratisation of nations" --> suggest attributing the quote in text
  • As the Russians... --> probably best to say "Soviet Union" instead of Russians here, or "Soviet forces" potentially
  • "File:Avril de Sainte-Croix.jpg": suggest using a cropped version of this so it is consistent (visually) with the other images (i.e. without a border)
  • Interestingly, was just discussing cropping the photo yesterday with restorer, Adam Cuerden, who is working on the image. I have updated the discussion today with your suggestion.[1] SusunW (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography Cobble is overlinked
  • "File:Millicent Fawcett.jpg": would probably be more visually appealing if it faced into the article (i.e. right aligned)
  • same as above for "File:Millicent Fawcett.jpg"
  • Assume you meant Lady Aberdeen's photo, so I made it facing into the article.  Done SusunW (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Lady Ishbel Aberdeen 1899 IIAV 15541.TIF": suggest using a cropped version of this file, removing the signature so that it is more visually appealing
  • I have absolutely no idea how to crop something that has already been uploaded to commons. Have asked for assistance.[2] SusunW (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again SusunW. If you get stuck, ping me and I can crop both for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog the Mild. I didn't want to mess up any of Adam's processes, so I asked him about de Sainte-Croix. As is evident, GMG has helped me with many images, but if he cannot help on the Aberdeen photo, I'll advise. Appreciate your offer of assistance. SusunW (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SusunW (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have addressed the issues you brought up, though I must wait for technical help on a couple of them. SusunW (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Susan, your changes look good. I will wait a bit to see what the others come up with, and then take another read through. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day AustralianRupert this one is progressing well, can you indicate if you have anything else to add/support if you're happy? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response -- I have been out of town for a few days. I have made a couple of minor tweaks today, but it looks good to me. Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Greetings SusunW. I'd say welcome here with your first (I reckon) nomination. I'll claim here a seat. I'll be back for my part in this review tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh PS I forgot something. May I ask you which kind of English does the article uses? I think you use British but I could be wrong right? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Apparently from the discussion of English between the GA reviewer and one of the contributors[3] it is in British English from the Collins dictionary school, rather than British English from the Oxford dictionary school. Being neither British, nor partial as to what version of English is used, but recognizing that all the other articles on the Paris Peace Conference/committees used British English, I deferred to their judgment of preference. SusunW (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • opened in Paris on 10 February 1919 Unlink Paris it is a common name.
  • First World War and Second World War VS World War I one of them should be standardised.
  • between 3 and 8 February 1919 Remove 1919.
  • conference scheduled to open on 10 February 1919 Same as above.
  • They mailed invitations to organisations in all Allied Nations American mailed.
  • Are you asking a question here? You want mailed changed to posted? Sorry, but I am confused. SusunW (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed "mailed" is an American English word. If this article should be written in British then we should change this one to "posted". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • from France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as Armenia, Belgium, New Zealand, Poland, Romania and South Africa Link Italy with the Kingdom of Italy's article, link Armenia with the First Republic of Armenia's article, link Poland with the Second Polish Republic's article, link Romania with the Kingdom of Romania's article and link South Africa with Union of South Africa's article.
  • I realised that we should link New Zealand with the Dominion of New Zealand's article, link France with the French Third Republic's article and link United Kingdom with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland's article.

More to come Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inter-Allied Women's Conference could serve as advisors American advisors.
  • This is like a treasure hunt ;), assuming you want advisers here? and if so,  Done SusunW (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • along with the Maharaja of Bikaner Ganga Singh (India) and other dignitaries Link India with the British Raj's article.
  • issues as deportations from Armenia, Belgium, Greece, France, Poland and Serbia Link Greece with the Kingdom of Greece's article. Also I thought that Serbia merged into the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes?
  • I have no problem linking to that, and did so, but the reference article from 1919 states "Cambon pointed out that a woman’s commission would be particularly valuable in presenting the conference with the details regarding deportation of women from France, Belgium, Serbia, Greece and Armenia", clearly calling it Serbia. If you are okay with linking, then it is  Done SusunW (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sale of women in Greece and Turkey were pertinent issues Change Turkey to Ottoman Empire and link this article 'cause officially it was called Ottoman Empire instead of Turkey.
  • Ten, without Wilson present, on 11 March 1919 Remove 1919.
  • serve in any office of the League of Nations Link League of Nations.
  • -isation VS -ization.
  • were intent on participating in the November 1919 Remove 1919.
  • Conference scheduled to convene in Washington D.C. or the State Washington?
  • with others from Belgium, Liechtenstein and the Netherlands Link Liechtenstein 'cause it is not a common term.
  • advanced on territories held by Germany Link Germany with Nazi Germany's article.
  • records and took them to Moscow where Unlink Moscow 'cause of common term.
  • the KGB's secret Osobyi Archive [de] (Russian: Особый архив) Unlink Russian 'cause of common term.
  • This is I think not possible. The template to input a foreign term automatically renders a link to the page X-language, in this case Russian language. As there are 22,800,000 hits to Особый архив and only 1,670 to Osobyi Archive, the Russian name is the common term and I felt it should be included. SusunW (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you CPA-5 for your thorough review. I think I have addressed all of your points, but if not, please ping me. SusunW (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies for the late delay. I was busy in irl so I hadn't time for Wikipedia right now I've a day off now I can focus at some reviews Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

The sources used all seem reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67[edit]

G'day and welcome to Milhist ACR, Susun. Thanks for putting this article together, coverage of such topics is seriously under-represented on WP, especially given the relatively recent recovery and cataloguing of the archives. I have a few comments:

  • I suggest stating who M de W-S was when she is introduced, for example, "a vice-president of the International Women's Suffrage Alliance/President of the French Union for Women's Suffrage" do we know in which role she wrote to Wilson?
  • Kind of complicated and I hope I made it clear. The IWSA was an umbrella organization and the French auxiliary branch was the FUWS, so in effect she was representing both.  Done SusunW (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • when did she send the letter to Wilson? Suggest including this
  • I think the sentence beginning "Concerned with war crimes committed against women..." is too long and needs to be broken up
  • same as point 1 for Rosika Schwimmer, Hungarian ambassador/Hungarian suffragist? and Millicent Fawcett, British suffragist?
  • link Belgium for consistency
  • I disagree with you PM. You just run in a dispute here. May I ask you why should Belgium be linked here if your John Leak's nomination doesn't link Belgium? If youn think about that then it is looks really odd. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should be consistent within an article. If we accept that Belgium is so commonly known as not to be linked, then why link all the other countries that people should know? Frankly, I've seen too many YouTube videos where people can't even find Australia on a map of the world, so why assume people know where Belgium is? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not assuming that people know where Belgium is or some informations about that country. I definitely believe you I met some people who barely know about Belgium. Why do I ask to link other countries is because the countries who I believe should be linked are not common to the readers. They've not for nothing a seprate article. If we are talking about common terms then it should be only the current state not like the country France who've a lot of kingdoms and republics's articles. New Zeeland became indapented from the Britons in 1947 so it make sense that the article Dominion of New Zealand should be linked because it's before its curent state. Other articles like the UK or Japan did have some other officially names or even government systems. Like Japan had an absulute monarch and was called Imperial Japan. Belgium on the other hand has one article and one kind of government system in its modern history. Believe if we link Belgium here then I think we should link it in your article too. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally agree with the observations about geography (I have only met one traveler in years of international moving about who knew where Mérida, Mexico was), but my concern here is Sea of Blue. On the other hand, we could Ignore all Rules and link Belgium to Belgium in World War I, because as we said in the article, "significant changes were made to the political, cultural, economic, and social climate of the world". Knowing the context of the historical period is important and tying each of these countries into the time in question adds to our understanding of events, IMO. SusunW (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • where it says "French suffragists alerted Wilson", is this a reference to M de W-S's letter or an second approach to him?
  • A second approach. Inserted 25 January.  Done SusunW (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Greece at first mention rather than second one
  • link Netherlands
  • link Ministry of Foreign Affairs (France)

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review Peacemaker67, if we can figure out how to link Belgium, I think I have addressed all your concerns. If not, please ping me. SusunW (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of whether to link Belgium or not is such a minor matter, I'm not going to argue the toss over it any further. All the rest of my points are addressed. This is a great article, very happy to support its promotion to Milhist A-Class. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Peacemaker67. I truly enjoyed working on it. Now to find those looted archives from Belgium and Liechtenstein (I previously wrote about the Dutch one). Who knows what other stories have been left out of our historic record that are hidden there? SusunW (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & support by Pendright[edit]

Kudos to you for an article that is both interesting and well written. Pendright (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede:

  • The women in question had been denied an opportunity to ...
Which women "in question "are being refered to?
  • Changed it to "Leaders in the international women's suffrage movement"  Done SusunW (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though the Inter-Allied Women failed to achieve many of their aims, it is significant in that their efforts marked the first time negotiation ...
Consider changing "it is" to "it was".

Bckground:

  • In parallel, the French feminists worked to persuade [the] male delegates to support [the] women's involvement,[9] as they were convinced that international co-operation and co-ordination were required to solve [the} domestic socio-economic problems. [The] Women who responded to the call to participate as either ...
Consider adding the definite article as noted.

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar/definite-article

Actions:

  • The Paris Peace Conference negotiations took place over a five-month period from January to May 1919, ...
Consider replacing "a" with "the"

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar/indefinite-article-and

  • Though their conference did not begin until February, the women immediately got to work and a delegation, led by chair Millicent Fawcett, met with Wilson ...
  • Consider replacing "a" with "their" or "the."
  • Would chariperson be better suited than chair?
  • In the recent RfC[4] chair and chairperson were pretty evenly supported. Chair has been in use since the 18th century, whereas chairperson is a word of recent origin. At the time in question, it would have been likely that chair or chairman would have been used. As chair is clearly the ungendered term, it is to my mind, the better choice. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Pendright (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilson suggested, instead, that [the] male diplomats on the commission form a Women's Commission ...
Consider adding the definite article "the".
  • The resolutions the Inter-Allied Women presented to chair Samuel Gompers,[27] covered a variety of issues including the health hazards of working conditions.
  • Would chairman or chairperson be better suited than chair?
  • See above. In the interest of keeping it neutral and less confusing, it seems weird to use chairman for Gompers and chair for the women. Chair is ungendered and to my mind should be consistent throughout the article. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Pendright (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding "the" before chairman/chairperson, and a comma afterward.
  • By the end of March, the women had persuaded [the] delegates to introduce a measure specifying that [the] women could serve in any office of the League of Nations.
Consider the deinite article as noted.
  • Changed at delegates, but not at women. They didn't just earn the right for the women present to serve, but for any woman.
  • Arguing that the civil status of women and children was inadequately addressed in international law, the Inter-Allied Women expressed concern over civil codes which allowed child marriages, condoned the prostituting, trafficking and sale of women and children, and treated women as the chattel of their husbands and fathers.
  • ... civil codes which allowed child marriages, condoned prostituting and trafficking and sale of women and children; treating women as chattel of their husbands and fathers.
  • Consider the above changes or something similar?
  • Changed to "... civil codes which allowed child marriages; condoned prostituting, trafficking, and the sale of women and children; and treated women as the chattel ..."  Done SusunW (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resolution pointed out that while women suffered in time of war, they also undertook jobs soldiers, who were away fighting, could not do ...
A word seems missing between jobs and soldiers?
  • They insisted women should be given equal access to all offices, committees and bodies of the League and that governments which failed to grant equality to women should be barred from membership.
Cosider adding a comma after the league, to break up the sentence that seems to have two independent clauses.

A pause here - Pendright (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pendright for the review. I think I got the points made to here, but ping me if I did not adequately address them. SusunW (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed to this point! Pendright (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aftetrmath:

  • Delegates of the official peace conference refused to see women's citizenship and political agency as an international concern dealing with rights.
  • Add the to begin the sentence.
  • ... dealing with rights?
  • changed it to "international concern or one of human rights"  Done SusunW (talk)
  • At the Zürich Peace Conference[,] hosted by the International Committee of Women for Permanent Peace from 17 to 19 May 1919, [the] delegates vilified the Treaty for ...
Consider the above additions.
  • The subsequent attendance at the International Labour Conference of many of the delegates from the Congress of Working Women resulted in the passage of international labour standards for maternity leave,
How did "The subsequent attendance at the International Labour Conference of many of the delegates from the Congress of Working Women result in the passage of [the] international labour standards ..."?
Because they had their ducks in a row and arguments prepared? From the source "...of the twenty-three women attending the ILC as official advisers, the majority had also attended the labor congress. This group, including Bondfield, Macarthur, Bouvier, Hesselgren, and Tanaka, spoke with passion and authority in support of the resolutions from the congress [i.e. the Congress of Working Women]. Their advocacy, in the opinion of many, greatly shaped the provisions of the maternity standards. After strenuous debate, the ILC adopted the women's congress recommendation of twelve weeks of paid maternity leave ... The ILC adopted standards on working hours and child labor below those proposed by the congress and, instead of endorsing night-work restrictions for both sexes, voted for laws covering only women and minors." (pp 1069-1070)
Maybe to clarify it is better if it is stated "The subsequent attendance and authoritative speeches made by many of the delegates from the Congress of Working Women at the International Labour Conference resulted ..." If so,  Done SusunW (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy:

  • During the Second World War French feminist archives, along with others from Belgium, Liechtenstein and the Netherlands, including the International Archives for the Women's Movement, were looted by the Nazis.
During the Second World War - this is an introductory phrase or element and should be followed by a comma.
In British Enlish, the introductory phrase or element (usually over three words) sets the stage for the main part of the sentence.
  • As the Soviet forces advanced on territories held by Germany, they in turn confiscated the records and took them to Moscow where they were housed in the KGB's secret Osobyi Archive ...
  • Conssider "the" before territories
  • Are the words "in turn" necesary?

Lede

  • Referred to in the lede and elsewhere: The Inter-Allied Women's Conference (also known as the Suffragist Conference of the Allied Countries and the United States)". Are there enough facts about it here to satisfy an average reader?
  • Not sure what you are asking. Are you asking me to justify the alternate name or saying you want more details in the lede? SusunW (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just a few upfront details about it. A footnote in the lede would do nicely. Sorry for the confusion! Pendright (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Pendright, you literally made me choke on my water because I was laughing so hard. I think you and my father must have been twins separated at birth. He always answered either-or questions with yes or no. So, dusting off my daughter cap, I think you want more detail on the term "Suffragist Conference of the Allied Countries and the United States", rather than "in general" more detail in the lede. It's kind of complicated, but in Guerra, p 76 in the middle of the Italian text is "Conference of Women Suffragists of Entente Countries and the U.S.A" written in English. There are no hits on this title if you google it in English. Ian, the polyglot, tried to figure out what it might have been originally called in French or Italian to no avail, and we concluded it must have been a poorly executed English to English translation. Futzing around with the wording, I came up with two "official documents"[5],[6] and a couple of British newspaper articles, like this one[7] which show "Suffragist Conference ...". If what you wanted was a note to the alternate name, then  Done and thank you for making me think of my dad. SusunW (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede is silent about legacy?
  • Added "The fact that the women were allowed to participate, validated that women could take part in international policy making and globalised the discussion of human rights." If this is sufficient then  Done SusunW (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Pendright (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images:

  • If you plan to make a run at FAC, you may wish to consider adding alt. text to each image.
  • Do you think adding a date and/or country (where applicable) would be approprite?

Done - Pendright (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright again I thank you for the review. If you can clarify the one outstanding question, I think we are done. Not sure about making a run for FAC. Never done it and Ian, whose advice I rely upon, thinks my first attempt would be better suited to a biography. Seems to me that as the list of participants already gives their country of origin, adding it to the photos would be duplication? SusunW (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Ian is a master!

@SusunW: - Pendright (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That he is. SusunW (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: Good enough! A small issue, but it seemed important at the time. A belly laugh is priceless, and if (yes/no) reminded you of your father then that’s even better. Thanks so much for your ready and detailed responses. I’m happy to support this interesting and well-written article. Good luck! Pendright (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SusunW: Don't take my earlier advice on FAs too literally. Now that this article has come so far, I think it might well be worthwhile nominating it for FA. Several people have taken an interest in its progress and are likely to provide support.--Ipigott (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Let's get through this process first Ipigott. Then there are the rest of those redlinks to deal with. Not sure whether a "table"/chart would be a better display for the participants or if that works for FA. Anyway, we can discuss it, I haven't closed the door on the possibility. SusunW (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert, CPA-5, Gog the Mild, Peacemaker67, and Pendright: am I supposed to be doing something, are we waiting on more reviews, or are we good to go? (Not a yes or no question Pendright ;) )SusunW (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that we may be waiting for an image review. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog the Mild, just wasn't sure if I should be doing something. SusunW (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just bask in the glory of having created (almost, soon) a rather fine A class article which other editors think highly of.
And Ipigott is correct. You should nominate this for FA.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria, given this is Susun's first ACR, would you mind doing the image review? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the lead image
  • I took it to 300 px, is that sufficient? SusunW (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size is fine, but this should be done using |upright= rather than a fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lady_Ishbel_Aberdeen_1899_IIAV_15541_(cropped).jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Fannie_Fern_Andrews.jpg, File:Katharine_Bement_Davis_in_1915.jpg, File:Զապէլ_Եսայեան.jpg, File:Juliet_Barrett_Rublee_as_Tacita_the_dryad,_a_character_in_Percy_MacKaye's_play_Sanctuary-_A_Bird_Masque,_in_rehearsal_for_first_performance_at_the_Meriden_Bird_Club_sanctuary_dedication_in_LOC_agc.7a18022.jpg, File:Nicole_Girard-Mangin_avec_Dun_(1878-1919).jpg
  • Aberdeen's photo was on a carte de visite, i.e. the equivalent of a business card today, created in 1899, by W J Byrne and Co, Richmond, England per the Atria site and was distributed for the International Council of Women.[8] SusunW (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Byrne died in 1916, thus 70 years expired in 1986 before the 1996 Byrne date went into effect. If you accept that creating a business card as advertising is publishing then it was published in the UK in 1899. According to the Byrne Convention, publication is "the reproduction in tangible form and the general distribution to the public of copies of a work from which it can be read or otherwise visually perceived",[9] which would appear to apply to advertising to me. If you do not accept that advertising is publishing, then still 120 years have lapsed since its creation and it is in the PD in the US. The only tag I find that shows this language is {{PD-US-expired-abroad}}, but it will not allow me to affix this tag, instead giving a warning to use {{PD-US-expired}} which states that it was published prior to 1924. I have no idea how to tag it. Can someone help? SusunW (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I figured it out by removing the 1923 from {{PD-old-70-1923}} it removed the auto population of information that it was published in the US prior to 1924. If that is acceptable then  Done SusunW (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrews, I have no idea. The details on the photograph show it was created between 1905 and 1945,[10] which is a huge range to search through. I looked on newspapers.com and and newspaperarchive.com it would appear from other photos that this was likely taken after 1920. The Library of Congress states that the photo was in the Harris & Ewing collection given to the LoC in 1955 and for which all restrictions placed at the time of the gift have expired. SusunW (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general we should not include the pre-1924 publication tag where no pre-1924 publication can be demonstrated. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused, the tag says in the public domain and might have been published. Are you saying another tag should be used? SusunW (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the tag says the image is in the public domain because it was published (or registered) before 1924. That means that for any of the above images where we cannot definitely demonstrate a pre-1924 publication, this tag can't be used. Another tag might be appropriate but we really need to know when or if the images were published. For something like the Yesayan image, where we can't tell one way or the other, we're probably stuck with not using it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria The tag says "This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1924. See this page for further explanation." It does not say it was published. Davis is tagged exactly the same. Neither of these are the same tag as is on Rublee which says "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1924". I honestly am completely confused. SusunW (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, let's try approaching this a different way. This chart breaks down reasons for copyright expiration in the US. Which reason do you feel applies to each of these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo was likely taken on or before 1934, as an image by the same author and in the same outfit was published in The Boston Globe 5 September 1934.[11] Other than that, I do not know, as there is no way to determine from the information at the Library of Congress what restrictions or terms were placed, just that they were and no longer apply. The LoC site clearly states "The Instrument of Gift included restrictions which have now expired. In addition, the Library acquired from various sources photographic prints taken by Harris & Ewing. Copyrights were placed on some of these photographs, but the copyrights have expired. Privacy and publicity rights may apply".[12]. Are we questioning whether the LoC is a reliable source? It honestly seems no different to me than the London School of Economics stating their photo is in the PD, or the National Library of France providing similar info on numerous photos. SusunW (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davis, I have no idea. The details on the photograph show the description by the Bain News Service is that it was taken between 1910 and 1915.[13] Descriptions on the collection indicate no known restrictions on publication and as the one above, they were given to the LoC. A photograph from the same series, note that Davis is wearing the same dress and has the same hair style, was published in the Louisville Courier Journal on 16 January 1921. SusunW (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as Andrews, says might have been published. Doesn't say was published. Do you want another tag used? If so what tag? SusunW (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bain collection states "No known copyright restrictions. Publicity rights for individuals depicted may apply".[14]
  • Changed image for one from the same collection which was clearly published.  Done SusunW (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yesayan, virtually impossible for me to research, as I do not speak/read Armenian and have no idea whether the photo's origins in the Ottoman Empire might be located in Armenia or Turkey. Seems to me as if an expert in researching that area would be needed. SusunW (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone to the category for her on commons. Seems to me that the majority of photos there have the same problems, but this one was actually published on a passport/visa in 1919. I have had the discussion before as to whether that constitutes publication or not and been advised it can be viewed either way??? If indeed it is considered published then it could replace the other image, if someone who knows how could crop out her image (i.e. the top one). SusunW (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed image with rationale for US.  Done SusunW (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rublee clearly was published in September 1913 as the LoC page states it came from the Sanctuary book, (perhaps the program of the play?) It was purchased by the LoC from the estate of the author in 1942-43.[15]
  • This tag is clearly different from the two above as it says it *was* published prior to 1924, which would appear to be correct based on the LoC information.
  • Since the rationale that it was published seems to be in dispute, changed the image.  Done SusunW (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mangin, I have no idea. The photograph I had uploaded[16] for the article had clear publication information and was the only one for which I could definitively state information on. I do not know what this message "This file has been superseded by File:Nicole Girard-Mangin, 1916.jpg. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent." means. Thus, have no idea how to change the image back. SusunW (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can simply swap it as you would any other image. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know little to nothing about copyright. It would seem to me that if the copyrights of these collections above belong to the Library of Congress as indicated, that they are owned by the government and in the PD regardless of whether they have ever been published. Is that not the case? SusunW (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends very much on the specifics of the copyright agreements made in the donation of the collections. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Nikkimaria, I really do not understand. If the LoC says any restrictions in their accepting a gift or purchasing a collection no longer exist, how can any still exist? SusunW (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a different issue. My point was with regards to your question about "owned by the government and in the PD regardless of whether they have ever been published". Whether that would be the case depends on whether the copyright was transferred to the government or not, which typically for donations to LOC has not been the case. A copyright expiration is tagged differently from an image where no copyright existed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a page buried in a page which says that certain collections of the LoC have copyright templates, thus I affixed the correlating tag to Andrews and Davis. There does not appear to be such a tag for the Genthe Estate (Arnold Genthe) Collection on WP for Rublee's image, but clearly it was published so maybe that isn't an issue? You will note on the alternate image for Mangin, that while it is anonymous, it was likely taken the same day as the 1916 image I had uploaded and possibly by the same photographer. Same clothes, location and dog. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Margery_Corbett_Ashby_(1923).jpg: the given tag requires that this is PD in its home country - is that the case?
  • Well, according to this if the author is unknown and photo was published before 30 August 1989 then UK copyright expired 70 years after publication. It was clearly published on 24 November 1923 though one must have a subscription to view the link to pages 946-947 of issue 4414. None of the photographs indicate who took them. Across the top is a banner which states "Photographs by Vandyk, Barratt, Elliott and Fry, Alice Hughes, Lafayette, Topical, Lassano, Hoppe and Russell". So from the copyright law, if the photographer is known, "If the work is a photograph with a known author taken before 30 June 1957 then copyright also expires 70 years after the death of the author". If Carl Vandyk (1851-1931) or his son Herbert (1879-1943) are Vandyk then 70 years have lapsed since they died. Unable to identify who Barratt might be. According to this site photographers with the surname working in the UK between 1840 and 1940 included A. Barratt, George A. Barratt, John Barratt, Lucy Germeuil Bonnaud-Barratt, Peter Barratt, Barratt & Stanley, Barratt’s Photo Press Ltd, Boswell & Barratt, and Hobbs & Barratt. There is insufficient information given in the newspaper article to identify which of these the photographer might have been. All photographs by Joseph John Elliott (1835–1903) & Clarence Edmund Fry (1840–1897) have clearly exceeded 70 years since their deaths. Same with Alice Hughes (1857-1939) and James Lafayette (1853-1923). If her photo was made by Topical Press Agency, it did not dissolve until 1957, so that might be problematic, but we have no evidence that they made the image. I find nothing at all that might indicate who or what Lassano was or when it existed. Likewise, I find nothing at all for Hoppe and Russell. (If Hoppe is E. O. Hoppé that could be problematic, if it were known if he was the photographer because he did not die until 1972.) Thus, it seems to me, as we do not know who the photographer was specifically, the photo is likely in the PD and should be tagged {{PD-UK-unknown}}, but I am unsure. SusunW (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clear that Ashby had a series of photographs in this outfit first taken for her 1918 campaign. The person who took them is not identified in any document I can find: [17], [18], [19]. I have checked newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, newsvault, newsbank, the Times, The Guardian, The Economist, The Picture Post, and The Illustrated London News without finding any photo that confirms the author of the series. Thus, have tagged as unknown and think it is  Done SusunW (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Jeanne_Bouvier.jpeg: where is that licensing coming from?
  • File:Le_Petit_journal_illustré_Cecile_Brunschwig.jpg: this appears to have been published outside the US - was it published in the US as well? If no, that US tag is incorrect
  • Not as far as I can tell. It is quite clear that the original image [20] was made by Henri Manuel (1874-1947) and was signed in 1926. So it is clearly in the PD in France. On the other hand, I found an image [21] taken 29 May 1926 by Thérèse Bonney (1894-1978) which appears to have been cropped, flipped and published in the US on 23 July 1929 in The Dayton Herald. Checking copyright.gov, I find no renewals for searches on Thérèse Bonney, Therese Bonney, or The Dayton Herald, nor for any articles/images on Cécile Brunschvicg or Cecile Brunschvicg as a title, name, or keyword. I am not remotely sure how to upload this as the French text on the original (and clearly better image) says "Droits d'accès: Consultable sans restrictions Droits Reproduction: réservée à un usage strictement privé. Mention de la source obligatoire." (You can look at it but not reproduce it except for private use.) Does this simply mean it is not in the PD in France? It does not show a publisher, and states the date was taken from the photograph itself. On the bottom it also says "© The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley / Thérèse Bonney / BHVP / Roger-Viollet". For the US image, while it is a derivative work, given that there is no indication it was published in France, and there is no credit given to the author in the newspaper, nor was a copyright renewed, is it in the PD in the US? Obviously, if this is the case, I can replace the image. SusunW (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we would not be able to assume it's PD in the US on that basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no indication that Bonney's image was ever published in France. I have checked French newspapers at newspaperarchive.com, Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France)'s newspaper collection, Bibliothèques Municipales Spécialisées's newspaper collection and Les Archives nationales. None confirm publication of the image nor any other image of her except that 1936 image from Le Petit Journal. SusunW (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also ran surname check at copyright.gov for Brunschvig only results are for Michelle; Brunschwig only results are for Brunschwig & Fils furniture as a title. No results for Cecile Brunschwig. SusunW (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ray_Strachey_restored.jpg: any more specific tags available?
  • I am unable to access anything on the London School of Economics page[22]. I searched both newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com and find no images of her at all. I searched Alexander Street Press' "Women and Social Movement" collections too. No idea who made it, when it was made, nor where it might have been published. SusunW (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also checked the Times, The Guardian, The Economist, The Picture Post, and The Illustrated London News without result. There is a photo of Strachey in which she appears to be about the same age, or slightly older, as in the LSE photo on the same page and next to the image of Ashby. This would indicate the LSE photo was taken before 1923. SusunW (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was finally able to access the LSE site, there is no more information there. I have tagged it the same as I tagged Ashby, but the verbiage the template is producing is different. I suspect that this has to do with the date, but have no idea how to make the template read a date range. The URAA notice should read the same as Ashby, not say it was published after 1924. Anyone know how to fix this? SusunW (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently the problem with the tag is that one is on commons and one on en.wp. Fixed US tag to reflect Flickr's statement that it expired.  Done SusunW (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Julie_Siegfried.jpg: source link is dead
  • Archive.org link shows photograph and source, but does not confirm that it was published in the US. Clearly the image from this source was derived from the one from the Gallica - Bibliothèque nationale de France by Eugène Pirou (1841-1909). It does not appear to be in the PD, as it states that it cannot be reproduced except for private use; but it gives no publishing information whatsoever. On the other hand, a derivative, cropped image was published in the U. S. on 29 April 1919 in the The Hutchinson News so does that mean it is in the PD in the US, but not in France? I've corrected the link and added the info on author (with a link to confirm where I got it) and the publication data. Is that sufficient? SusunW (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we can't demonstrate that it's PD in the source country, we'll need to host it locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Published in France in 1918, see comments below.  Done SusunW (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry to ask so many questions and apologize if I sound obtuse. I am truly just trying to understand, and am lost. I do not know what "host it locally means", nor do I understand why this one could be hosted locally and the situation above on Brunschwig's photo by American photographer Thérèse Bonney could not be. Both photos do not appear to have any information that they were actually published in France. Both show that a version of the image was published in the US and neither US publication appears to be copyrighted, one because it was published before 1924 and the other because no renewals were made. I thought what you said determined the copyright was publication. So if they were indeed both published first in the US, why would they be treated differently? SusunW (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uploading an image to Wikimedia Commons requires that the image is in the public domain in both the US and its source country. English Wikipedia, on the other hand, accepts images that are in the public domain in the US only, not in the source country. The derivative image published in the US in 1919 would now be in the public domain in the US, regardless of its status in France; it can thus be uploaded here on English Wikipedia with no problems. For the other image you mention, the first confirmed publication was after 1924 and the original publication is uncertain, so we'd need more information to confirm its US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Avril_de_Sainte-Croix_-_Restored,_cropped.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As near as can be ascertained the photograph was created in 1925. The photographer moved to the address shown on the photo in that year and a photograph which is from the same series (even though it is a terrible print: note the little scarf-like sleeve, the square necked dress, the hanging jewelry thing on her shoulder, the similar hair style, the desk with pen in her hand) was published that year in The Salt Lake Telegram. Was the original ever published? I do not know, as the Gallica - Bibliothèque nationale de France mentions nothing other than it is in the public domain. I have spent days scrolling through newspaper articles on the Bibliothèques Municipales Spécialisées site but because I cannot figure out how to search by date, I must pull up every single paper and review it. SusunW (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced image with one published in the US in 1918.  Done SusunW (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria photographs are clearly not my specialty, but I've spent the day researching these. Possibly you can give me some direction? SusunW (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria It's been a couple of days and I don't really know where to go from here. Aberdeen, Andrews, Davis, Rublee, Strachey all appear to me to have the proper tagging. Yesayan I need help with to crop a replacement image, if you will accept that a visa photo is published. Ashby I need direction on, as well as Brunschwig and Siegfried. Mangin and Bouvier are done unless you need something else. That leaves only Sainte-Croix and I may have to find another image for her if it cannot be ascertained that this one was published. SusunW (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need for assistance: I'm stepping in here as despite my efforts, I have been unable to find anyone familiar enough with tagging (or image presentation in general) to help out here. It would be very unfortunate if the A review could not be completed owing to a few difficulties with the images. Can Gog the Mild, CPA-5 or Pendright suggest any image experts who could participate?--Ipigott (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ipigott. Since I haven't been able to find anyone to help or answer the questions either, I have for the most part been changing out the images for ones I can verify are in the PD. I am pretty positive that Brunschvicg's photo is in the PD in the US. It is exactly like the scenario on that Margot Fonteyn image with Michael Somes that Wehope helped me with. (Unfortunately, Wehope, who was my go-to image expert is no longer active on the project.) I asked at the village pump, but so far no answers. I have no idea how to move Siegfried from commons to en.WP. Surely there is a template for this? SusunW (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Victuallers can help with this.--Ipigott (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reply I got from Commons:Village pump/Copyright was to use template {{PD-USonly}} to upload, but when I tried to affix it to Siegfried, it is a redlink and not a working template. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Aymatth2 who uploaded the original image of Siegfried, as possibly they know how to fix the issue so that it is only on en.wp and not on commons. I don't want to take away from their creation of the image. SusunW (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File:Julie Siegfried.jpg should be o.k.. It was created by Eugène Pirou (1841–1909) so entered the public domain in France in 1980. It was published in L'Image in February 1918 [23]. That collective work entered the public domain in 1989. The BnF note saying "Reproduction réservée à un usage strictement privé" would just be a standard note for all works from the Bibliothèque Marguerite Durand and can be ignored. Presumably {{PD-US-expired-abroad}} applies. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aymatth2 Thank you so much! SusunW (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I believe they are all correctly tagged now. SusunW (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few remaining issues:

  • File:Cécile_Brunschvicg_by_Bonney_1926.PNG: the version published in the Dayton Herald would be PD if not previously published elsewhere; however, this is not that version
  • Cropped, flipped and updated.  Done SusunW (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Zabel_Yesayan_First_Republic_of_Armenia_Passport_photo.png: you mention above a discussion about passport photos being considered "published" - do you have a link to that discussion? Additionally, is it known what the Armenian copyright law was prior to 2006? If it had the same consideration around authorship, point 3 of the URAA tag would not be met
  • Has repeatedly come up and I have discussed it with too numerous editors over the last four years to remember. I am positive I discussed it with Wehope (no longer active) and most recently with GreenMeansGo (who is currently busy off-wiki)here.
  • I have to say, that particular discussion isn't too convincing that it should be considered published. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gist of the discussion is whether the Berne Convention's definition of publication, "the reproduction in tangible form and the general distribution to the public of copies of a work from which it can be read or otherwise visually perceived" is met. Clearly a passport is tangible, the question is whether it is generally distributed to the public. Armenia defines it as "(1) ... made public by its first authorized public recitation, public performance, public display, publication, broadcasting or by other means of making available to the public".Article 5 My take, as someone who lives abroad and travels a lot is that my passport is my primary means of identification. I have provided it to government officials, shop keepers, banks, travel agents, airlines, hotels, and multiple other entities who are part of the general public. The alternate argument is that it is in my private control whether I want to present it, thus it is not available to the general public. To my mind, publishing it in a paywalled journal, is no different, as the publisher is controlling who has access to the item as well, but no one would question whether that was published. SusunW (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time the photo was created, the First Republic of Armenia governed, but by 1922 it had been dissolved and Armenia became a member of the USSR. Soviet Republics did not recognize private author rightsp 403 and any rights that did exist expired after 25 years.p 407 Though Armenia gained its independence in 1991, they did not replace the Soviet copyright provisions until 13 May 1996.p 11 The terms of that law gave the same consideration to authorship[24] but for our purposes is irrelevant since it was not in effect at the time of the Berne effective date of 1 January 1996 for Russia and its former Soviet Republics. *Note, Armenia established an independent relationship with the Berne Convention in 2000. Done SusunW (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Maria_Vérone.png: the provided source says the publication date is unknown. I understand why the creation date is believed to be before 1924, but any evidence of publication at that time? Same with File:Ray_Strachey_restored.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The post card from which it was derived was published in 1914.[25], but I find no evidence that indicates this version was published. Changed tag to expired. Strachey's does not indicate it was published, it says it expired. I have researched every avenue available to me and cannot find evidence it was published. Research is stated on the image.  Done SusunW (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What leads you to believe these two images are PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria these are done. SusunW (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I'm finished. If you have remaining problems with any of them, we'll just need to remove them because I can find no more information or helpers. SusunW (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The one remaining issue from my perspective is the Yesayan image: I appreciate your background on the Armenian situation, but I would lean towards a passport not being considered publication under US law, which is relevant for the URAA tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, Nikkimaria I have removed it. SusunW (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing, Nikkimaria! We all appreciate how painful image licensing issues can be, SusunW, it kills me every time I have to remove an image because the information and licensing just isn't up to scratch. Well done on prosecuting them all as much as you could, they really bring out the uniqueness of this conference for the reader. This article is in great shape, I'm about to list it for promotion, but encourage you to nominate it for FAC after that, as it has had a fair going-over here and there shouldn't be too many obstacles there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 thank you. I kind of doubt that I will nominate it for FA. I'm exhausted and found this last part discouraging. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a thorough review and I have no problem taking criticism and making changes. I guess, if I had expectations at all, it was that it would be like an academic advisor reviewing a dissertation. I've done many of those and my role as a coach is to communicate issues and help my student overcome them to make the article as good and accurate as it can be. I get that sink or swim is also a valid approach, but it isn't one that I personally find typically inspires people nor carries a collegial spirit. But, in spite of that, I have learned a lot and appreciate participating in the process and the opportunity to improve the article. I thank all the reviewers for their time and allowing me to learn something new. SusunW (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Inter-Allied_Women%27s_Conference&oldid=902100857"