Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Inter-Allied Women's Conference

Inter-Allied Women's Conference edit

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 8, 2020 by Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Inter-Allied Women's Conference opened in Paris on 10 February 1919, several weeks after the start of the Paris Peace Conference, the meeting of the victorious Allies of World War I to set peace terms for the Central Powers. The women's conference was convened after the war to introduce women's issues to the process. On 18 January Marguerite de Witt-Schlumberger, vice-president of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance, asked Woodrow Wilson, the US president, to allow women to participate in the discussions that would inform the treaty negotiations. After first being rebuffed, suffragists were allowed to make a presentation before the Commission on International Labour Legislation, and on 10 April a resolution was presented to the League of Nations Commission. Though the women failed to achieve many of their aims, they gained the right for women to serve in the League of Nations organisation. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): don't recall anything similar
Main editors: SusunW
Promoted: November 2019
Reasons for nomination: International Woman's Day
Support as nominator. Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per TFAR instructions, I've copied in the text from the blurb review ... it's fine to make edits to this version, but this is the starting point for edits, to preserve the reality and the appearance of a consensus-based process ... I've had repeated signals from the Main Page folks that this is important to them. Give it another shot, please, and keep it between 925 and 1025 characters, including the 18 for (Full article...). Of course, TFAR is another consensus-based process, so anything can be changed here. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC) And ... thanks for your many years of fine work at TFAR. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A fine article and just the sort of thing that Wikipedia should be putting on its main page. I have made a couple of tweaks, but feel free to revert. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as one of the creators. Believe it is an especially significant international event and would be appropriate to be highlighted on international women's day. SusunW (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for an article about a significant international event to appear on a significant day (International Woman's Day).--Rosiestep (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for an article about a unique and important international event to appear on an appropriate day (International Woman's Day). ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 21:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Gog and Gerda. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that large portions of this article are lists, that might be better placed at "List of women who ... " and then linked in the article. The meaningful text in the February section, as one example, is lost in a sea of blue. If the list of women was somehow separated, the meaningful text would be more accessible to the reader; the sea of blue would be reduced, and the list could be a table format that could be sorted by country, profession, organization, date attended, <whatever chosen>. There is more of same in March and April.
This is not reason to oppose the article running TFA, but something it would be nice to see cleaned up. The February, March and April sections are not compelling reads (they are lists), and the compelling portions of those sections are overshadowed by the sea-of-blue lists.
Alternately, an "Attendees" section could include the same information in table format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. I don't see a list issue, the text is detailed but readable, and the MOS prefers narrative over list sections. In this context, where there is a need to put membership in context, a table or list would not be the best choice for this material. There are many links, as the people are notable and have their own wikipedia articles, but I don't see a "sea of blue" problem; that issue is more for awkward overlinking like New York City, New York, United States of America. Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support This is an excellent choice to mark IWD. Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To those watching this page, rather than the actual article, I have put up a mockup of a proposal here on talk, where my reasoning is explained; the proposal can also be viewed at Talk:Inter-Allied Women's Conference/Proposal. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]