Talk:Women of Britain Say 'Go!'

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Women of Britain Say 'Go!'/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 00:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Claiming this. I will be able to review it tomorrow. ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• All done and over to you! Please ping me when done. Note I have a headache today so apologies in advance if this affects the review at all. Many thanks, ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @LunaEatsTuna, thanks so much for picking this one up! Hope you are feeling better. I have addressed your comments, apart from the broken DOI link (which I'm not sure how to address). Let me know if you need anything else. Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 22:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the well wishes! Okay, I fixed the DOI issue and am now more than happy to pass this article for GA status. Congrats! ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go. Quotations used in-line with WP:COPYQUOTE.

File

The image used is relevant, appropriate and of good quality:

File:Women of Britain Say - "Go" - World War I British poster by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, art by E J Kealey (Restoration).jpg: valid public domain rationale.

Prose

• Recommend adding March 1915 to the release date parameter.
  • Done.
• Due to not having an article, could "who produced the majority of the early recruitment posters in World War I" also be added to the mention of the Parliamentary Recruitment Committee in the lead?
  • Good idea, done.
• I see its purpose, but I do not think the citation in the lead is really necessary.
  • I've had a read of MOS:LEADCITE and agree it's not particularly controversial so I've removed.
• "At the outbreak of World War I," – I would wikilink WWI here as it is relevant to the topic of this article.
  • Done.

Relatedly:

• I do not think it is necessary to wikilink Government of the United Kingdom.
  • No problem, have removed.
• "early recruitment posters in WWI." – change to World War I for consistency with the rest of the article.
  • Done.
• Is the efn note about Kealey relevant?
  • There isn't an article for Kealey and not much is known about him, so I thought some additional context might be suited in a note. I can remove if it's not relevant.
    • Seems fair enough, I'll go with your judgement.
• "of two women and young boy" – missing a.
  • Thanks! Fixed.
• "expressions and the boy holds onto one of the women." – recommend "expressions as the boy holds onto one of the women." for better flow IMO.
  • Agree, fixed.
• "average family's financial situation or their security." – recommend "average family's financial situation nor their security."
  • Thanks, have fixed.
• "The poster Academic" – Academic should be lowercase.
  • "The poster" is a typo, just fixed to "Academic".

Refs

Passes spotcheck—no concerns found with refs 1, 2, 5, 13, 17 or 22.

• Ref 4's retrieval date is italicised for some reason (0-0).
  • Ah the double apostrophes are messing up the formatting. I think I've fixed it.
    • I was wondering how that happened!
• Ref 19 is improperly formatted.
  • Thanks, fixed.
• Ref 20 does not work when clicked.
  • Thanks, fixed the typo.
• The DOI for Smith, Angela is dead.
  • Huh, no idea how to fix that as it's the DOI for the journal (see here).
    • I fixed it—it seems it was a typographical error in the article.

Other

Short description, WP:ALT text, See also, navboxes, other templates and categories all good.

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Poster

• ... that the poster Women of Britain Say 'Go!' (pictured) has been considered as "one of the most iconic images of the Great War"? Source: Cohen, Debra Rae (2012). "Getting the Frame into the Picture: Wells, West, and the Mid-War Novel". The Space Between. 8 (1). ISSN 1551-9309. Page 85
  • ALT1: ... that the propaganda poster Women of Britain Say 'Go!' (pictured) was part of an attempt to ignore pre-war advances by women and reinforce gender stereotypes? Source: Zack, Rachel (2022). "Masculinity in Crisis, Manhood at War: Examining the Role of Gendered Anxieties in Great Britain's Entry into the First World War". Living Histories. 1: 47–55. Pages 48-49 , Cohen, Debra Rae (2002). Remapping the Home Front : Locating Citizenship in British Women's Great War Fiction. Boston: Northeastern University Press. ISBN 1-55553-533-X. Page 5
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Down Will Come Baby

Improved to Good Article status by Unexpectedlydian (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Women of Britain Say 'Go!'; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nom is a recent GA article, well sourced, and long enough. Both hooks are cited and interesting, AGF on ALT1. The public domain poster is in the article and clear. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Consider for March 8 prep 1? International Women's Day? Bruxton (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems" - "neutral"? "neutral"? - it's about as "neutral" as Vladimir Putin's approach to Ukraine.

"The poster utilises gender, guilt and emasculation to emphasise its message." That sentence, for example, reads like a statement of fact, when it is nothing other than an opinion, and one which reeks of Presentism and Chronocentrism.

If anyone is in need of a reminder: [[1]]

Referencing a bunch of books by Sociologists who use ludicrous, fantasy terms like "Gendered Anxieties", while not even acknowledging that other points of view may even exist, let alone mentioning what they might be, does not constitute neutrality.

The article might as well say "This poster was evil, and E. J. Kealey as well as the Parliamentary Recruitment Committee should have been burnt at the stake", such is the disparaging nature of the existing text towards the poster.

• Hello, the lead of the article summarises the article body which is why the line you quoted is stated factually. The article body has citations throughout which you can check. I think the sources are pretty representative of the breadth of the subject, but please feel free to suggest alternative sources. Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 21:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)