Talk:Seneca Falls Convention/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

A little on the short side for this length of article, probably needs another paragraph. The influence and encouragement of the Quakers seems to be an important theme, but it's not covered in the lead.

"... she promoted the event as being the first time that women and men gathered together to demand for women the right to vote." I think that's a really awkward sentence on a couple of levels. First of all "promoted ... as being"; "being" doesn't seem to add anything over "promoted ... as". Secondly, the separation between the verb "demand" and what's being demanded in "to demand for women the right to vote" is just too great. "To demand the right for women to vote"?

Reform movement

"... began allowing women to pray aloud in gatherings of both men and women." What's "both" adding here?

Women's rights

"... discussed again the possibility of a woman's rights convention." Shouldn't that be "women's rights"?

Political gains

"On April 7, 1848, following a petition drive by both male and female New Yorkers ...". What's a "petition drive"?

"... giving women the right to retain property they brought into a marriage, as well as property they acquired during the marriage. Creditors could no longer seize a wife's property to pay a husband's debts." this doesn't seem to quite make sense. If before the passing of the Act women couldn't retain the property they brought into the marriage, or aquire property during the marriage, then what property did the wife have for creditors to seize anyway?

Resolutions, declarations, grievances

"... Stanton edited the grievances and resolutions". Sometimes "Resolutions" is capitalised and sometimes it isn't.

"Because he intended to run for elective office ...". Shouldn't that be "elected office"?

First day

"... the organizing committee arrived at the Wesleyan Methodist Chapel shortly before ten o'clock on a hot, sunny day to find a crowd gathered outside and the church doors locked." Why were the church doors locked?

Afternoon session

"... Stanton's addition of woman suffrage." Shouldn't this be "women's suffrage"?

Further conventions

"... who would not be visiting the Upstate New York area for much longer". Does this mean that she wouldn't be staying in the area for much longer?

Historiography

"In 1870, Paulina Wright Davis authored a history ...". I'm not a fan of this trend for using nouns as verbs. What wrong with "wrote", or "published"?

The convention in popular culture

This section is really too short to stand alone. I'd suggest merging it into the one above, or integrating the two sentences elsewhere in the article.

See also

Seems very long, suggesting that maybe the article is missing some material, but in this case I'm unconvinced by the relevance of many of the links. For instance, Equal Pay Act (1963), which actually redirects to Equal Pay Act 1970 anyway.

Some entries here are redundant, because they are already included in the body of the article, like Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution for instance. Need to check for others as well.

Thanks for taking on this review! The points you bring up, the ones I agree wholeheartedly with, I will begin working on in a few days. I offer some push-back on only a few of your points:

"Woman's rights" and "woman suffrage" were how the subjects were spelled 150 years ago, with the singular word "woman" accepted as being analogous to "womankind" in the same way that the word "man" can be used to stand for "mankind".
Regarding elective vs. elected office: Merriam-Webster online offers as its first definition "chosen or filled by popular election; an elective official". The phrases "elective office" and "elective official" recur throughout legal documents easily found online. There's a book called Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future. It may sound somewhat archaic to the ear, but I would like to retain the word for old times' sake. ; ^ )
The word authored was first used as a transitive verb in 1596, according to Merriam-Webster. If it can be called an element of that trend, it is a stale one. I don't see the word as a problem. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I don't agree, but I won't fight you over it, and it's certainly not anything that would stand in the way of a GA listing anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have expanded the lead section to account for major ideas presented in the article. I feel the article is ready once again for review. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Everything looks fine now. Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 6 April 2010 (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.