Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Davison/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emily Davison[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Emily Davison was an interesting woman. Highly intelligent (Oxford educated in the time before women were awarded degrees), she joined the militant suffragette movement in 1906 and became one of the more active and high profile of its members. Always with an eye for high-profile activities to promote the cause, three of her arrests followed her hiding in Parliament over night.she is, of course, best known nowadays for her death following being struck by a horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby. Elizabeth Crawford, a historian who has written extensively on Davison, has been kind enough to read the article and to provide comments, directions and corrections where necessary. A post-review trip to FAC is hoped for. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

An interesting read. Glad to learn more about this. Most everything seems in order. Just this:

  • "having been part of a deputation of 21 women from Caxton Hall to see the prime minister" I might put a "sent" before "to see" but it may just be an ENGVAR thing.
  • "after they interrupted a public meeting held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, at which women were barred from the venue" the last bit seems very clunky, perhaps all from the comma cut and after "public meeting" put "(from which women were barred)"
  • "during which time she lost 21 pounds (9.5 kg)" That seems a bit high, especially for a woman. But I imagine sources say what they say.
  • More than one of them gives the figure. It may have been exaggerated when it was first given and simply repeated, but it's not one of those things that can be disproved now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in September the same year after throwing stones to break windows at a meeting in protest at the 1909 budget." ambiguity whether the meeting or the stone-throwing was in protest of the budget. It's cleared up a few sentences later, but better now I think. Judging from Davison's comment, I gather women were excluded, I would mention this in prose, not just in her comment, as it gives her action more justification.
  • I'll re-work this later - I need to check the source for something first. - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wehwalt, Does this work for you? I may tweak it a bit later, as I'm not convinced it is the most elegant way of putting it! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She has several letters published," Possibly "had"
  • "She was knocked to the floor." Suggest "track" or in a pinch, "surface".
  • "as at 2017" should this be "as of 2017"?
  • An EngVar thing, I think
  • I might mention what they did about the race.
  • "Davison's death marked a culmination and a turning point of the suffragette campaign." I don't see how the remainder of the paragraph backs this up.
  • I missed the all important "militant" in there, which makes a difference. - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her London and Morpeth funeral processions contained a heavy socialist presence appreciation of her support for the cause." I would think you're missing a "in" preceding "appreciation"--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt. Partly done, and I'll finish off shortly. Cheers- SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done. Thanks again for your comments - they are always spot on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi, SchroCat. It is good to see you back. I just have a quick question: why does the lead image have no caption? – FrB.TG (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - nice to be back, although it's only temporary(ish) to put out a couple of articles. The lack of caption was an oversight: I went to complete it at one stage, then forgot to do it properly! Thanks for the nudge. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images[edit]

  • File:Emily_Davison,_c.1905._(22955287636).jpg: are there more specific copyright tags that could be added?
  • Where was this first published, and what was the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Emily_Davison,_1908.jpg: that UK tag requires that you explain the research done to attempt to ascertain the photographer. Same with Emily_Davison_(Suffragette)_killed_by_King's_Horse_at_Derby_(1913).webm
  • Done at the time for the first; I'll have to have a hunt round for the second. – SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done on the second. Nothing located, and image details updated. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Emily_Wilding_Davison_motto_1909_force_fed.png: per here, UK signatures generally are eligible for copyright
  • Nikkimaria, would it be PD, as she's been dead over 100 years? Would a licence tweak work? - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be OK, but I've taken it out on the grounds it doesn't aid understanding of the individual. - SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Suffragette,-Emily-Wi.jpg: if the description is accurate, this may not be usable - we can't have images that have permission for use on Wikipedia only
  • Licence tweaked. It was published in 1913, so is PD. - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Emily_Davison_plaque_at_Epsom_Downs_Racecourse.jpg: what's the copyright status of the plaque itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright symbol appear on the front or back of the plaque as far as I could see. – SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

An important and fascinating article about this enigmatic figure. I've not attempted a copyedit or a close prose review, but instead am raising a few points which I think might strengthen the article.

  • There's a few additional sources that could be introduced. The ODNB article has some useful nuggets. Fran Abrams's book Freedom's Cause: Lives of the Suffragettes (2003) has a long chapter on Davison; Paul Foot's The Vote (2005) has useful background detail, particularly on events surrounding the Conciliation Bills of 1910–12 (see below).
  • A footnote might be useful to expain how Davison was able to obtain first-class honours in her Oxford exams after one term's study at St Hugh's. It's because when she enrolled at the Royal Holloway College in 1891 she entered for the Oxford Honours School qualification, since at that time the RHC was not attached to a university and couldn't award its own qualifications. So the term at St Hugh's was merely a top-up to a much longer course of study leading to the Oxford exams. This information is in Abrams's book – if you think it worthwhile I'll add the note with appropriate citation.
  • The "state school" in Edgbaston is identified by Abrams as the Church of England College for Girls (p. 162) which doesn't sound much like a state school; indeed, it's arguable whether the concept of state education existed in the 1890s. Maybe "church school", with a change of link.
  • Abrams names the school in Worthing as Seabury School (p. 163)
  • I've got the same name in a couple of other sources, but it's a minor point and the place no longer exists, nor do we have an article on it, so I'm not sure we need to record it? - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you say, it's a very minor point, but I think if we have properly sourced precise info we should use it, however unimportant. But I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was arrested again in September the same year after throwing stones to break windows at a meeting in protest at the 1909 budget". What, or who, were her intended targets here? As you've written it, it sounds as though she was protesting against the 1909 budget, which sounds implausible. I imagine that the actual purpose of the meeting was secondary in importance to the publicity derived from attacking a gathering attended by senior politicians, perhaps including ministers. Can we have a little clarification?
  • I'm unhappy with the paragraph that begins: "In 1910 Asquith promised action on women's suffrage, but then went back on his word". The chronology is a little confused and some important detail is missing. Here is a brief summary of what happened:
  • After the first 1910 election which returned Asquith's Liberals to power as a minority government, a bipartisan Conciliation Committe was formed in the Commons to investigate some form of women's enfranchisement. The WPSU, although suspicious of the committee, agreed to suspend their militant activities pending developments. (So far as I can see you don't mention the truce in the article).
  • The committee produced a draft Conciliation bill, which proposed a limited extension of the franchise to some women. The bill passed its Second Reading in June 1910 by 109 votes, but was overtaken by events, principally the ongoing dispute between the government and the House of Lords which led to a second general election in December and the consequent loss of all pending legislation including the Conciliation Bill. It was the loss of the bill that led to the Black Friday demonstrations that you describe – but despite all ths, the WPSU truce held.
  • Asquith was returned to power again after the December 1910 election, and the government introduced a new and more generous Conciliation bill which passed its Second Reading by 167 votes in May 1911. Unfortunately its passage forward was impeded by in-fighting among the Liberals, some of whom were passionately opposed to votes for women. The bill was jeopardised by a new proposal, for a general franchise bill that would virtually universalise male suffrage and might be amended to include some women. Outraged by what they perceived as betrayal, the WPSU ended the truce and militant action recommenced. In this unsteady climate the Conciliation Bill was defeated at its Third Reading by 14 votes, and was dropped. The suggested franchise bill never materialised, so nobody was left happy except the arch-opponents of women's suffrage (the Jacob Rees-Moggs of the day).
I'm not suggesting that all of this needs to be in the article, but the truce should certainly be mentioned, and I think the paragraph should be a bit more specific as to detail. The main source is Foot, pp. 210–12
  • Hi Brianboulton, I've re-worked this a little to provide some brief background; does this fit the bill for you? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, fine. If it was up to me, I'd add a footnote along the following lines, just to complete the story: "Despite the loss of the Conciliation Bill, the WPSU maintained the truce until May 1911 when a second Conciliation Bill, having passed its Second Reading, was dropped by the government for internal political reasons. The WPSU saw this as a betrayal and resumed their militant activities".
  • "She became an employee of the WSPU". According to Abrams (p. 167), she was a volunteer and received no salary, so perhaps "employee" should be reconsidered. "Full-time volunteer"?
  • I'll have to check on this, but I think the weight of the sources have her in paid employment for some time. I'll clarify once I've gone through the sources again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the ODNB article, among the less sympathetic comments made after Davison's Epsom encounter was that of Queen Mary, who was solicitous about the jockey's welfare but called Davison "that horrible woman".
  • Re the image caption "Davison in later life". That's what Tim and are are in – a woman who dies at 40 can't really be said to have had a "later life". I'd change this to "towards the end of her life".
  • You mention Davison's feminism and her Christian beliefs, but not her socialism, which ODNB touches on: "Her socialist sympathies are evident in the tone of the memorial leaflet produced on her death, as well as in the significant socialist and Labour presence at her funeral procession".
  • We do mention the socialism angle. It's in the "Approach, analysis and legacy" section, next to the Epsom plaque. - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These points are intended to be helpful, but please don't feel you have to adopt them all. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent, Brian, and thank you so much for these. I'll work through them all properly shortly and drop you a line if I need to. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

The following was emailed to me from the always helpful Cass:

Early life and education
  • "she had an elder brother and a younger sister who died of diphtheria in 1880 at the age of six" -- Both died? It maybe just me but, that's how it reads.
  • "his first marriage had produced nine children before the death of his wife in 1866" -- redundant "had".
  • "While Davison was still a baby, the family moved to Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire;" -- "The family moved to Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire while Davison was still a baby" sounds better, IMO.
  • "When she was 13 she attended Kensington High School (now Kensington Preparatory School)" -- any need for the parenthetical information when a piped link would do?
  • "She saved enough to enrol at St Hugh's College, Oxford..." -- Saved enough confidence, time, or, like I suspect, money?
Activism
  • "Davison joined in the WSPU's campaigning activities, becoming an officer of the organisation and a chief steward during marches." -- "and became" would sound better than the "becoming".
  • "She began taking increasingly militant actions and Sylvia Pankhurst later described her as "one of the most daring and reckless of the militants". -- could we use a better conjunction? I was thinking of "which prompted" or "with", even? Although with the latter you'll have to modify described to describing.
  • "In March 1909 she was arrested for the first time, having been part of a deputation of 21 women who marched from Caxton Hall to see the prime minister, H. H. Asquith." -- I don't know what it is, but just recently I'm taking a dislike to "...ing" sounding words in prose, opting instead for the more definitive sounding "verb" option. Your call, though, as you do use it a lot and there's nothing madly illegal about it.
  • "Davison was arrested again in early October 1909, while preparing to throw a stone at Sir Walter Runciman" -- any need for the comma?
  • "She would use her court appearances to give speeches" -- "She used her court appearances to give speeches"
  • "She did not go on hunger strike, but between 29 February and 7 March the authorities considered that her health and appetite had declined to the point whereby they had to force feed her in order to maintain her health." -- A bit awkward and a health/health repetition going on: "She did not go on hunger strike, but the authorities required that she be force fed between 29 February and 7 March as they considered her health and appetite to be in decline."
  • "She later wrote" -- almost seems naked without a colon...
  • "She cracked two vertebrae and badly injured her head, despite which she was force fed shortly afterwards before being released ten days early." -- awkward and doesn't read very well. Do we need to mention, again, the force feeding? It's become quite repetitive in this paragraph already. I'd stick at just the injuries...
  • Yes, I think we do need to mention it. Despite some rather severe injuries, the authorities still force fed her: there is something of a suggestion that this goes beyond medical care and into further punishment. Let me try and re-work it, however, and get rid of the awkwardness. - SchroCat (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Davison was arrested for a final time in November 1912..." -- How many other times was she arrested during this month? A comma may suggest throughout the year, which is what I suspect you mean...
  • All done, bar the Asquith point, which I'll address when I work on one of Brian's points. - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fatal injury at the Epsom Derby
  • "On 4 June 1913 Davison obtained two flags bearing the suffragette colours of violet, white and green from the WSPU offices and travelled by train to Epsom, Surrey, to attend the Derby." -- Inappropriate conjunction used to link two, from what I can see, two completely unrelated pieces of information, or are they?
  • "While the race was under way and some of the horses had passed her position..." Bit awkward and what position in the race was Davison? Suggest: "While the race was under way and with some of the horses having passed her..."?
  • "She was operated on two days later, but she never regained consciousness; while in hospital she received hate mail." -- It seems odd to tack on the hate mail to this, albeit with a s/c. Is there a more suitable place for it?
  • "The inquest into Davison's death took place at Epsom on 10 June. Jones was not among the witnesses as he was not well enough." -- I know of your fondness for a semi-colon, so I was surprised at not seeing one here, if I'm honest.
  • "The verdict of the court was" -- Again, no colon. Although I suppose I could be chatting shit (see what I did there?)
Funeral
  • All good, my end
Approach, analysis and legacy
  • "Davison wrote in The Price of Liberty about the high cost of devotion to the cause:" -- You use a colon here, for instance ;)

I'll work through these shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Cass. All done, and only one point left to cover when I do Brian's comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going on leave for a week, so I may be a bit slow in picking up on comments. If I do not get round to dealing with any new comments in the interim, I will on my return. And excellent news – Professor June Purvis, the emerita professor of women's and gender history at the University of Portsmouth, has agreed to look over the article and give comments. This will probably be late next week, which timing works out well. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Interesting life and fate, thank you. Just minor points, and some may be due to my lack of English, - in German we'd need many more commas, for example.

Lead

  • "Much of Davison's life has been interpreted through the manner of her death." - I am not happy with "manner" of a death.
    • I think it's fine in Engish, but if you have an alternative, I'd be glad to hear it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably I have a too limited understanding of "manner". "Circumstances"? Is there something that suggests a sudden violent death with doubts about both what happened exactly and why? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I think it may be a language thing. Consider this headline or this book title and you'll get the drift. If others raise the point we can always re-consider later. – SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early ...

  • The first sentence seems to miss a comma for the "Greenwich".
    • It's the Americans who insist on commas after places, but it's not usual in British English. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am left curious about the children from her father's first marriage which is mentioned late. Were they out of the house when she was born? Aren't they siblings also?
    • The sources are not clear on the where they were (although they would all have been much older, so possibly would have left. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about adding to the image caption that she was graduating from the University of London then?
    • Because it's not clear that was taken when she was graduating - it may have been later and none of the sources clarify it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Activism

  • "the use of force-feeding prisoners" leaves me uneasy, I'd understand " the use of force-feeding", but the addition of the prisoners sound strange to me.

Fatal ...

  • "The king and Queen Mary were present at the race and made enquiries on the health of both Jones and Davison. He " - it's unclear who ""he" is, - I guess the King, but King and Queen are the subject of the former sentence, and another man, Jones, mentioned. - I'd capitalise King once Queen is capital.
    • Clarified on the "he". Reading the MoS on the capitalisations, I think "the king" should be lower case, while "Queen Mary", as it's the full ttle use, should be upper case. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I came from a recent discussion (on my talk, Roosevelt Dime, to be archived soon) where a user would even capitalise the adjective "Congressional" when a specific congress was meant. That may be another American thing though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd not combine the two images of different colour and size side by side.
    • Sizes tweaked. I don't think the slightly differet colours should be a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you think about separating them and use one in the context of "martyr" and female angel" below. I'd prefer to look at one at a time, and each a bit larger, but that may be just me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I prefer them together, considering they are so closely related. Besides, on wide screens, there are enough images without sandwiching, or knocking others further down the page, which is what will happen if they one is moved. - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need to interrupt for singing, more to come, possibly tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. I look forward to hearing them - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for responding, understood most. Singing (all from Messiah) was good, will read further tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal ... 2

  • "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends", how about the biblical source from John 15, verse 13?

Approach ...

  • "who did not mean to die, but was prepared to" vs. who "did not mean to die": I'd mention the latter first, then the more specific with the "but".
    • Tweaked, but I'm not sure there is much in it either way. - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "doctrine of the Christian faith", why not simply "Christian faith"? ... or Christian teaching? ... and what kind of a Christian, Anglican? - I don't see "doctrine" in what follows. - Generally: a few words about Christian upbringing or whatever caused these ideas might be helpful in the bio.
    • There is a slight difference between "doctrine of the Christian faith" and "Christian faith", and we reflect the source in using "doctrine". There was nothing in the sources about a particularly "Christian upbringing", and it is only in her writing that this approach particularly manifests itself. - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • link to Parable of the Pearl?
    • I think the MoS bids us not to use links within quotes? - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to make "Legacy" an extra section, with the image in its context.
    • I'll think about having Legacy in a separate section as there is a logic to it. If we move the image down then it will start moving into the section below. It is close enough to the material to OK, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, enjoyable reading, despite the tough topic, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments; they are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All fine, learning (including that doctrine obviously means something else than Doktrin, will find out more). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing PR, with thanks to all. – SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Emily_Davison/archive1&oldid=796008116"