Talk:Art in the women's suffrage movement in the United States

Worldwide view

Dear MorganPeterson20, I note that this article is being written as part of the course: Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Brigham Young University/The United States Since 1877 (Winter 2021), with the supervision of Ian (Wiki Ed). Welcome to Wikipedia!

I have added a 'tag' to the top of this article noting that it does not "represent a worldwide view". A fundamental error in the scoping of this article is that the title ("Art in the Women’s Suffrage Movement") implies a complete scope - all countries, periods of time, languages... - but only talks about the USA (and a little bit about UK). This flaw is most strongly seen in your phrase: "The Suffragettes achieved their mission's purpose on August 26, 1920 when the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified by the state legislature" - which is referenced to a document called History of U.S. Woman's Suffrage. If you look at the Timeline of women's suffrage you will note that the USA appears roughly halfway down the page. It is offensively simplistic to people in countries both earlier, and later, on that list to state that simply because the USA passed a law in 1920 that suffragettes achieved their purpose, without adding any further qualifications on the sentence. Unless you intend to rewrite the scope of your article's prose (and therefore undertake a lot more research), I strongly suggest that you narrow the scope of your page to the USA specifically (with a new article title to match).

I have also left some comments on the talkpage of one of the other students in your course, which are also applicable to your article. See Talk:Music_and_the_United_States'_suffragettes. Specifically the sections of my comments there about the scoping of the inline list (in your case the 'notable artists') and the footnoting of 'obvious' statements and bringing them together to form Original Research conclusions. Moreover, there are phrases in your prose that flagrantly do not follow the core editorial policy of WP:NPOV. For example, "This movement was not a fight between men and women, but rather between narrow-mined people who were resistant to change and open-minded people who were open to change."

Finally: your article has no inline links to other articles. All the individuals and organisations mentioned (among many other things) should be blue links. Equally, there are sections which seem only tangentially relevant to your topic - e.g. a whole paragraph about Bloomers. Wittylama 12:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear MorganPeterson20 (also tagging Ian (Wiki Ed)), I see that you have responded to the comments above by changing the page title to append "(USA and UK)" to it, but with no other changes. This title is not what I was proposing as it is an arbitrary combination of countries that just happens to suit the scope of your research. For comparison, it would be equally inappropriate to have this article with the scope "Japan and Ireland" - because there is nothing in the source material that explains that scope as of encylopedic relevance. A scope based on a specific US State, or the whole country, or the whole world would be viable, because there are sources which speak about those levels of scope. My recommendation is that you want to focus on the USA, and only the USA. That scope is consistent with your sources. This would require the removal of the UK content. That would justify the remvoval of the 'worldwide view' tag at the top of the page, too. However, you will also need to respond to the other comments I've listed above. Bringing this article to an 'encyclopedic style' is not merely a question of length, but of writing style that is appropriate for this specific medium. Wittylama 12:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

To comment, I would argue that the article can have shared scope if there are WP:RS that frame them together. If there are strong similarities in the art between the US and UK movements that are different from other similar movements, then it would make sense to have a joint article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you both for your comments and suggestions for this article, I appreciate them a lot. I have made several changes to the article in part including the addition of inline links, a more clear focus on the US suffragettes, and the removal of statements that I could tell were not neutral toned. Again, thank you for your help! MorganPeterson20 (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)