Wikipedia:Peer review/Birth control movement in the United States/archive1
Birth control movement in the United States
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on submitting the article to FAC, and I'd like to meet all the FA requirements beforehand, so I don't waste reviewers' time at FAC. I'd appreciate it if the PR reviewer were familiar with the FAC process and FA requirements. I'm looking for this peer review to act as a dry-run of the FAC, so don't hold back the criticisms! Thanks. -- Noleander (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: This is an interesting and important article. It will take me a while to review it all, but here are some comments on the early sections:
- Infobox
- I wonder about the value of an infobox for this article. It doesn't really give sufficient information to be really useful; better, perhaps, to rely on a succinct lead section
- Lead
- At present I think the lead, particularly the opening section, is a little overdetailed; we don't need at this stage the information about Sanger's husband's arrest, especially as no reason is indicated for this. Also, having said that the campaign's object was to make contraception legal in America, you need to indicate the extent to which it had become illegal.
- There are a few prose issues, e.g. "hundreds regional birth control organizations" (word "of" missing), and the phrase "on the books" is too imprecise for an encyclopedia article
- Birth control practices
- "Prior to 1914, when the birth control movement in the U.S. began, birth control was widely practiced in the U.S...." Rephrase to avoid repetions, e.g. "Prior to 1914, when the birth control movement in the U.S. began, the practice was common throughout the country".
- "U.S." or "America": both terms are employed throughout the article. I believe that here, "America" always means the US, but you need to be sure that statements avoid ambiguity.
- Explain and/or link fertility rate
- "Emphasized douching"? Reads oddly; would "recommended" be clearer?
- You need to say that Bradlaugh and Besant were prosecuted before saying they were acquitted. Give the year of their trial
- Can a survey that extended from 1892 to 1912 be accurately described as a "survey of American women's contraceptive habits in the 19th century"?
- Contraception is outlawed
- Suggest delete "is" from title
- "Contraception was legal throughout most of the nineteenth century..." Insert the words "in the U.S."
- Give dates for Civil War (lots of non-American readers won't know when it was)
- Some lack of clarity in the narrative. I understand that the federal Comstock Act banned the distribution of contraceptives throughout the US, and that some (unnamed) states extended the ban to the use of contraceptives. At the end of the section the implication seems to be that the ban on use had become more general. Is this so? What, eactly, was the legal position at the end of the 19th century?
- Free speech movement
- "Sanger became convinced that elitism prevented working-class women, who needed it most, from obtaining contraception" Just elitism, not the fact that it was illegal?
That's a start; I'll be back with more, soon Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Next instalment:-
- Free speech movement
- Journals (e.g. Harper's Weekly and the New York Tribune) do not "write" articles; they may "publish", or "commission" them.
- Early birth control organizations
- Copyedit & punc checks carried out - should be checked
- First birth control clinic
- "birth control clinics following the Dutch model" → "birth control clinics based on the Dutch model."
- "The clinic was shut down, and another birth control clinic would not open again until 1923". Clumsy wording; " another birth control clinic would not open again" doesn't make sense. I know what you mean, but...
- Hmmm. I changed it to " The clinic was shut down, and it was not until 1923 that another birth control was opened." Which seems okay to my ears, but maybe that is odd also? --Noleander (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense, either: "another birth control was opened"?? Perhaps "another birth control facility was opened". And presumably you should specify "in New York".
- Hmmm. I changed it to " The clinic was shut down, and it was not until 1923 that another birth control was opened." Which seems okay to my ears, but maybe that is odd also? --Noleander (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- "The trial of Sanger, in January 1917, was a watershed event in the movement's history:" Is this opinion specifically covered in the citation at the end of the sentence? Otherwise it needs to be cited separately.
- "Despite the strong support, Sanger was convicted, and the judge offered a more lenient sentence if she promised to not break the law again, but Sanger replied 'I cannot respect the law as it exists today'." Not an "and" senetnce. Suggest semicolon after "convicted", then "the judge offered..." I'd also say "a lenient sentence" rather than "a more lenient sentence, since no sentence has yet been mentioned.
- Going mainstream
- "from the trial" - specify "Sanger's trial"
- "Sanger, a self-promoter who jealously fought for the public limelight..." Such descriptions need to be attributed, as well as cited.
- The fact that several films on birth control were made in the 1910s does not of itself indicate that the topic had captured the public's attention. You'd need to show that there was a level of interest in these films.
- "women who would choose of "ease and fashion" over motherhood" - what is "of" doing there?
- "Over the course of ten years". Perhaps "Over the course of the following ten years..."
- Legal victory
- "This ruling was only binding within New York, but it opened the door for birth control clinics, under physician supervision, to be established." The "but" is awkward her, since the second part of the sentence does not qualift the first. Suggest replce "but" with "where"
- I'm not sure about the parenthetical "it did not". Better, I think to say "wrongly believing"
- World War I and condoms
- "in Europe, they found rubber condoms readily available, and when they returned to America, they continued to use condoms as their preferred method of birth control." That suggests that they were readily avaialable in the US, too - was that the case?
- My reading of the sources is that there was a feedback loop: there was huge demand generated by the returning soldiers, and that prompted several companies to increase their manufacturing capacities. But, yes, condoms were always available, often underground. A lot depended on enforcement of laws which varied widely from state to state, and from DA to DA. Many laws were not enforced. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Legislative efforts
- For consistency, don't use "WWI" abbreviation
- "In 1919, Dennett published The Sex Side of Life, which became a widely distributed educational pamphlet in the 1920s, treating sex as a natural and enjoyable act". Needs reordering, along the ines: "In 1919, Dennett published an educational pamphlet, The Sex Side of Life, which treated sex as a natural and enjoyable act and was widely distributed".
- The narrative would flow better if the next sentence began, "However, in the same year, frustrated...etc" (and drop "in 1919" at the sentence's end.
More soon.... Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Final comments
- American Birth Control League
- Sanger was arrested for disorderly conduct ... but we hear no more of this. What happened to her?
- Second birth control clinic
- "to make it legal under the court ruling" - what court ruling?
- "pretense" is rather strong, and suggests dishonesty. Suggest alter to "guise"
- "after ten years of progress" I think you mean "ten years of struggle" rather than "progress"
- Widespread acceptance
- ..."the emergence of a sexually permissive society which was marked by prohibition, flappers, and speakeasys." This reads very oddly. The term "a sexually permissive society" surely needs qualifying, e.g. "a more sexually relaxed society". And how on earth do speakeasys and prohibition mark a sexually permissive society?
- Opposition
- "refused to cover birth control" Perhaps "refused to cover stories related to birth control".
- Eugenics and race
- "They assumed that African-Americans were backwards..." I assume you mean "backward", not "backwards", and I suggest you qualify to "intellectually backward".
- Expanding availability
- The word "insensible", if it is the judge's, should be in quotes
- This sentence "The diaphragm was confiscated by the U.S. government, and Sanger's subsequent legal challenge led to a 1936 court decision by Judge Augustus Hand which overturned an important provision of the anti-contraception laws which prohibited physicians from obtaining contraceptives" is too long, and needs splitting. You should never have "which" twice in a single sentence.
- The next sentence, beginning "This court victory..." is likewise too long.
- Planned Parenthood organization
- "The 1936 court battle..." Specify; these various court cases can be confusing
- "...the two leading birth control organizations in America – the ABCL and the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB)..." There has been no previous mention in the article of the BCCRB, so how is it now one of the leading birth control organisations
- This is a tough one. I've improved it to: "The 1936 One Package court battle brought together two birth control organizations – the ABCL and the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (formerly the CRB) ..." The CRB is defined earlier in the article. Sanger renamed it from CRB to BCCRB at some point. --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- After World War II
It's a bit disappointing that the final section gives no information about what happened to Sanger or to any other pioneers of the birth control movement. A short paragraph to this effect would round the article off nicely.
That concludes my review. I hope you have found these comments helpful. It's an impressive article, well-written and covering the subject comprehensively; it certainly has the makings of an FAC, and with a bit of final polishing I don't see why it shouldn't succeed - though bear in mind that there are aspects such as images and sources that I have not examined. Good luck with it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)