Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth Cady Stanton/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:52, 10 December 2007.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton[edit]

Significant additions and alterations have been made to this article since it receive A-class status. The article has been stable for quite a number of months; all facts seem to be properly cited, and, as someone who has taught American history and who has done much research on ECS, I believe the article to be factually sound and comprehensive. I would happily see this article used as a source on the subject by a student. I should also note that I have contributed substantially to this article, as have various other editors.Jancarhart (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh ... Right now the article is in a totally botched state. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that. This was the problem.-Wafulz (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that many of Stanton's motivations are sourced to her autobiography. I think that all of these statements have to be explicitly tagged as such in the prose. For example, "Even as a young girl, she enjoyed perusing her father's law library and debating legal issues with his law clerks. It was this early exposure to law that, in part, caused Stanton to realize how disproportionately the law favored men over women, particularly over married women. Her realization that married women had virtually no property, income, employment, or even custody rights over their own children, helped set her course toward changing these inequities." - This statement is sourced to the autobiography. I think it would be better to say that Stanton later said in her Reminiscences that it was this early exposure to law that, etc. The same goes for similar statements. Awadewit | talk 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would, of course, be nice if the "Bibliography" were in a familiar citation style, such as Chicago or MLA. Awadewit | talk 17:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support This is a solid article on an important feminist (we always need more of those!). There are just a few things that need sprucing up for FA:

Her Declaration of Sentiments, presented at the first women's rights convention held in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York, is often credited with initiating the first organized woman's rights and woman's suffrage movements in the United States. - This is one of the most important facts about Stanton. It should be sourced to one of the most reliable sources we can find, not a 1902 obituary from the NYT.
In my opinion, the infobox is a bit out of control. The long lists of children make it unwieldly. Why not try a table, if they are important? See, for example, Sarah Trimmer. I would delete the infobox since all the rest of the information is in the article and it detracts from her portrait.
Footnotes need to be standardized - all "p" and "pp" need to have periods after them, for example.
More links - Episcopal, Continental Army, for example. See WP:MOS-L for advice on linking.
Could the primary Seneca Falls paragraph have some more citations than just the biography of Frederick Douglass? It would seem such a central event should be referenced to books about Stanton as well.
I feel like there might be an overemphasis on Ken Burns at the end. The major biographies of Stanton were published pre-Burns.
Mutually supporting footnotes would be a nice thing to add in the future (see Mary Wollstonecraft). This ensures that the article is presenting a scholarly consensus and not just one historian's view of Stanton. (I just note this as a suggestion for after the FAC.)

This article was a pleasure to read. Thank you for taking the time to put together such a complete and well-written article! Awadewit | talk 13:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bibliography is a bit lengthy and doesn't seem to conform to any specific citation style. Kaldari 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query Is anybody working on this nomination? Awadewit | talk 13:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.