I would unlink suffragists, as at present it incorrectly links to National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (and not all the women at the hospital would have belonged to that organisation). Consider amending the end of the sentence to ‘...entirely staffed by women who supported women's suffrage.
...was established during the First World War… - ‘during the First World War’ is redundant and needs to be removed. -- Talk to G Moore 03:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Done[reply]
...by Doctors… - ‘...by the medical pioneers…’ is more accurate.
This title is unnecessary. I would remove it and make the subsequent level 3 sections (from 1.1 to 1.8) into level 2 sections. -- Talk to G Moore 03:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Done[reply]
Hospital
The title doesn't describe the section adequately. Consider amending the title to something like ‘Location’.
The image is stunning—and I would swap it with the black and white photograph used in the infobox, as the b/w one is imo more relevant for this section.
A majority of the hospital equipment… - should be ‘Most of the hospital equipment…’. -- Talk to G Moore 03:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC) -- Talk to G Moore 03:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Done[reply]
...which was shut down because of a lack of patients as well as a destination change for injured soldiers from France to England. - this needs to be copy edited to improve the prose.
The subsections 'Staff', 'Women's Hospital Corps', 'The Women's Social and Political Union influence at Endell Street Military Hospital', 'Tension with the Royal Army Medical Corps', 'Contributions' and '1918 flu pandemic' are all short sections and need to be replaced by a single title ('The staff', or something similar).
At Endell Street, these women worked in what was considered female-appropriate jobs… - improve the English by writing ‘There, these women worked in what was considered to be female-appropriate jobs…’.
Gardeners would help in the courtyard and ward visitors would often come, some only wishing to visit with lonely patients as they did not have family or friends in the hospital. - I would amend this to something like ‘Gardeners helped in the courtyard and people without family or friends at the hospital came to spend time with a lonely patient.’.
Men did in fact play a supportive role at the hospital (as stated in Ref 2 (Geddes)), so it cannot be said that the hospital was staffed only by women.
...the women kept the suffrage movement and their hospital duties separate. - sounds unconvincing to me. I think you need to add how they accomplished this.
...due to their feminine touches – feminine touches needs to be in quotation marks (as done in Ref 2 (Geddes)) to avoid it sounding editorial or sexist to readers. You might find WP:WAW an interesting commentary on writing about women in Wikipedia. Also, the sentence could be improved by being clearer about how dull military wards in those days looked.
The lead section needs to be expanded so that as well as being a concise summary, it includes more of the main points of the article. I can come back to specifics when the main article is more complete.
The sources available to you need to be checked with a view to expanding the article, as there is information missing at present. The auxiliary hospitals are not mentioned for instance, and a quick search on the internet brings up possible other sources and areas worth mentioning—this refers to contemporary press cuttings, seasonal entertainment; this refers to a lost plaque; this film from Digital Drama looks good enough to include. There may be others.
Agreed that more could be added: I have added something on the visit of Queen Amalie, the plaque and the film. I will let G. Moore give thought to what more to add. Dormskirk (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting topic for an article, but it needs quite a lot of work to being it up to GA level. The article has been placed on hold until 7 October31 October to address the comments listed above. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@G. Moore: Hi, I'm not sure your talk page has been sent the automatic 'article now on hold' message, so I'm pinging you to let you know, and I'll something to you talk page as well. Regards. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125: Thanks for the feedback on the article, a lot of good feedback Hopefully, I can get some help from others (@Dormskirk:, et al). I am in the middle of moving and can't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia for the next couple of weeks. -- Talk to G Moore 02:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125: Many thanks for all your feedback: I have responded to most of the material, all of which I agree with. I cannot guarantee that I have got everything right, however! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125 and Dormskirk: I added a few additional facts that were noteworthy and expanded the summary to include major points about the hospital. I think that it is ready for your review. -- Talk to G Moore 11:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
