Talk:Emily Davies

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Davies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127070142/http://southampton.gov.uk/Images/LHF2010autumn_tcm46-309725.pdf to http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/LHF2010autumn_tcm46-309725.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Davies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140223045825/http://www.hitchinhistoricals.org.uk/publications/pioneeringwomen.php to http://www.hitchinhistoricals.org.uk/publications/pioneeringwomen.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

tweet for WiR

tweet Victuallers (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Good Article Editathon event in June 2023!

Hello Emily Davies:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in June 2023!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female climate scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning book or film by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Mujinga (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emily Davies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 10:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Early life

• Maybe link to Normandy

• sure! Mujinga (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Visting Henry in Algiers, [...]" Didn't he just die? The timeline here is a bit unclear.

• moved and made clearer, hopefully Mujinga (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Think a "While" could be added in before "Visiting" and "Living" here.

• added one Mujinga (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• It may be worth moving the bits about her first encounters with suffragists and her joining the feminist movement into the "Women's rights" section. It appears she's well into her late-20s/early-30s by this time, so I wouldn't say it's exactly part of her "early life".

• doneMujinga (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Women's rights

• "Victoria Magazine" should probably be in italics and maybe the link should be removed if it's also linking to Emily Faithfull.

• italicized and for now the wikilink remains since I think it's useful, but happy to remove it if you'd rather Mujinga (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• It's no bother, just seen it links to a specific section of that article anyway. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Codrington divorce case" Context? Why was this cause for Davies to disassociate?

• Spotcheck: "Rigorous avoidance of women with questionable reputations was normal practice among early feminists, who were careful not to expose their campaigns to accusations of immorality." This is a very important detail to include, I think.

• sure, added Mujinga (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• "She pressed for admission of women to the universities of London, Oxford and Cambridge." It may be worth including a timeline of when women were first admitted to these institutions in the legacy section.

• not sure on that, I already have "Cambridge University only began to grant full university degrees to women in 1940" Mujinga (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Along with other [...]" This is a very long run-on sentence. Try breaking it up a bit.

• ok hehe Mujinga (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• What was the result of the petition presented to parliament?

• it didn't achieve its objective so I guess the result wasn't reported - no result mentioned in the source or here Mujinga (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Girton College

• "Davies had founded" Think just "Davies founded" would be fine, as it's not like this intercepts with the previous section.

• sure Mujinga (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Might be worth linking to university college

• i think that link refers to a modern usage which means a university college as opposed to a university proper, whereas I mean a university college as in Girton college being part of Cambridge University ... happy to rephrase but not sure how (neither citation uses the phrase) Mujinga (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ahhh right, in that case it might be worth linking to Colleges of the University of Cambridge. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• i went for Colleges_within_universities_in_the_United_Kingdom#Oxford_and_Cambridge since it feels like the other one assumes it's already a college Mujinga (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The Senate [...]" So was this already a part of Cambridge University? It's not clear.

• I *think* that Girton wasn't yet part of Cambridge uni and the Cambridge uni senate (as in the ruling committee) refused to allow female students from Girton sit the official uni exams Mujinga (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Later life

• Think "London branch of the National Society for Women's Suffrage" would read better.

• sure! i wasn't sure about "of the ... of the" but it reads ok Mujinga (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• "and two years [...]" is this supposed to say "two years later"?

• yus, added Mujinga (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• "She left the London group when [...]" any more detail that can be provided on this divide?

• Spotcheck: Oxford Dictionary doesn't go into further detail, but it does say the split occured in 1912, not 1904. Fix this. ThoughtCo. source also doesn't actually appear to mention this at all. Add another citation to Delamont earlier in the paragraph to clarify.

• thanks typo fixed - Thoughtco is there mainly for her oppoisiton to suffragettes i think, so added earlier cite Mujinga (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Might be worth mentioning that Thoughts was her collected works. Also, be sure to properly capitalise the title, as per the original.

• oops missed this before - added collected writings and would prefer to keep sentence case across the article Mujinga (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• "leaving in her will £ 5440 17s 2d" any indication how much this is in today's money? Also, who did she leave this to?

• i could try a template but the shillings and pence put me off. no bequest mentioned in ODNB Mujinga (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Spotcheck: Neither of the cited sources mention a will or an exact amount. Where does this figure come from?

• its in the ODNB entry under "Wealth at Death" at end Mujinga (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ah right I missed that, was looking at the body. Still it says that was her wealth at death, not that she left it in her will. Honestly I think this could be removed without much of value (heh) lost. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  aww i just got the template working! but not bothered either way really - usuually it's more along the lines of "she died ... she left XXX to YYY" which is more encyclopedic indeed Mujinga (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think it looks good now! -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Legacy and recognition

• Does The Times have an archive that we could link to? Or is there any more information we can provide for people that may want to check this old newspaper?

• yes found it using gale, the wikipedia library is so great Mujinga (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• "where" should this be "whether"?

• yes! Mujinga (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• I wonder if this section could be expanded a wee bit more. What other lasting impacts did she have on women's education and feminism?

• I'll do another sweep Mujinga (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

References

• Just noticed that some of the references are incomplete. Doesn't cite date of publication for Delamont, Simkin and Lewis. Doesn't cite author for second ODNB citation.

• all done, thanks for pointing them out! Mujinga (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Further reading

• Consider formatting these references.

• noted Mujinga (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• Think "feminist" and "Suffragist" could be moved from the "known for" field to the "movement" field.

• done Mujinga (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is a very well written article, as expected. There's a few issues that keep this back from an immediate pass, but should be easily fixed.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   A couple issues with grammar and spelling here and there. Sorted.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   University of Glasgow link appears to be dead. Tag this so the archive-url is the default.

ah yes just saw this one, done Mujinga (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

1. b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Article is fully cited. It does rely on tertiary sources, with most of the secondary sources on the subject relegated to the further reading, but this isn't an issue for GA and is just something to consider for future article-building.

   c. (OR):

   There's a couple cases of sources being cited for information that's not in them. This needs fixing before it can be passed. Done.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Could be more detail in the legacy section, but otherwise all good.

   b. (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No reversions since 2021, before the GA process for this article even started.

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Portrait painting in infobox is in the public domain. Photographs of Girton college and suffragists have no known copyright restrictions.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   Holding for now, as there's still some minor prose and sourcing issues that need working on, but this should pass once those are dealt with. until Legacy pass is done.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Great thanks for the comments Grnrchst - I should be able to make some replies later today or tomoro. Happy solstice! Mujinga (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I've pretty much replied on everything see what you think - I'll do a sweep on expanding her legacy now. Mujinga (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Aye this is all good. Just make sure to fill out the references, per my late comment. I'm happy to pass this now, but I'll hold off just until you've had a look for other things to put in the legacy section. Excellent work as always! :) -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Cool, should finish the sweep today I hope! Mujinga (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Darn I'm still finding new sources and I've run out of time for today to read them all - I'll be off internets from tomoro until prob tues or weds next week, sorry about that I'll give you a shout when I'm back online! Mujinga (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your patience, should be able to finish this off tomoro or the day after! Mujinga (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I'm finding it hard to return to the sources, feels too much like hard work but I'll get there eventually! Mujinga (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Grnrchst I've been through the extra sources now and added a bit (not too much to be found to be honest). See what you think! Mujinga (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok! If you've checked for more and there's not much more to be added, that's all good. I'll go ahead and pass this now. Excellent work on this one! -- Grnrchst (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

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.