Talk:Milagros Benet de Mewton

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Milagros Benet de Mewton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 08:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Although I am no expert on the topic, I will review this. I will post my review piecemeal.

I have made minor edits to the article that I think are uncontroversial (spelling and adding links).

Thanks for picking this up Edwininlondon. I really appreciate it. No worries that you are not an expert in the topic, as I find that usually helps identify things that might be unclear to the average reader SusunW (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• "After the United States acquired Puerto Rico from Spain, inhabitants of the island gained U. S. citizenship." Stylistically it would be better to swap the order and put the next sentence first. But I'm not knowledgable in the subject, maybe that creates the wrong impression?

I flipped the order in the sentence, but think that as the acquisition occurred in 1898 and the Liga wasn't found until after men gained suffrage in 1917, the chronology would suffer to move her involvement in women's suffrage ahead of citizenship. I modified it slightly adding the date of gaining citizenship to the first sentence and removed it from the second. Does that work? SusunW (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I like what you did.

• "United States acquired Puerto Rico" should be a link I think. I see that the Puerto Rico article has a link to Treaty of Paris (1898) for that.

Thank you. WP's search engine is difficult and not intuitive to me.  Done SusunW (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "finally passed a law in 1929 granting suffrage to literate women." I think it would be good to also mention when universal female suffrage finally happened.

 Done SusunW (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Body

• The redlink for José stands out. Is he notable enough to get his own article? I'm no expert, but a quick Google search doesn't produce much. I'm happy to make a stub page if you think he is.

Really really hard question to answer. In general Caribbean articles are hard, because they do not have broad source distribution and are rarely digitized. Being a Spanish name, but an American, also makes it hard, as his surname was Benet, but sourcing often lists the maternal Colón as if it were the surname. My guess is if we were in Puerto Rico, sufficient sources could be found, but it would be difficult to discover adequate sources on the web. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I see. Let's leave it a redlink here. Perhaps tomorrow I'll have a look.

• "and her younger sister Cruz, went" I'm not sure about that comma. I wouldn't have one, but that doesn't mean you should change it. Unfortunately MOS:SERIAL is of no help.

 Done (Technically, I think it should be "younger sister, Cruz," but I've taken the commas out entirely.) SusunW (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "teach in the schools in Ponce, Puerto Rico" Is it known what she was teaching?

No idea. My knowledge of women's opportunities in the era says probably elementary school, but I have no source that says anything other than that she was a teacher. SusunW (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Upon passage of the 19th Amendment" I think this needs to explain what is in the amendment. The lead does that well, but it should be repeated here.

See, I told you not knowing was helpful. Added "which granted the right to vote to U.S. women"  Done SusunW (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "That year, and subsequently in 1923, they submitted bills for women's enfranchisement to the insular legislature." What were the outcomes? Were any successful?

No. Added "submitted 'unsuccessful' bills"  Done SusunW (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ana Teresa Paradas is a redlink, but she definitely is notable. She is on a stamp. I will make a stub page soon.

Cool. Let me know if you need help with sources and I will try. As explained above, it can be challenging. SusunW (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "attended the Pan-American Conference of Women" Where was this?

Baltimore. Added.  Done SusunW (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "in her country" I'm not sure Puerto Rico can be referred to as a country. Can we avoid the problem by saying "in her homeland"?

 Done SusunW (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Though both cases were unsuccessful, they caused a rift .." That "though" is a bit puzzling. Why is it there? Would it be simpler to say "Both cases were unsuccessful and caused a rift..." ?

 Done SusunW (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(continuing ..)

• Partido Republicano Puro is in Spanish without English translation. And a bit further it is Socialist Party without Spanish. Probably better to follow what was done in the beginning of the article: give English name with a loang-es in brackets.

I usually follow WP:Common name and find it bizarre that things that don't have wide usage in English are translated. We don't translate La Louvre, or Via della Conciliazione, or Alhambra, or any of a million other things which are widely known, so I find it perplexing that English wp wants to translate things that do not have wide recognition, into English. For example, I google "La Liga Social Sufragista" vs. "Suffragist Social League" and finding 3x as many references in Spanish, I list the Spanish first followed by an English translation. Since you have been flipping these the other way, I am unsure of how to proceed, as to me, the Spanish common name should go first (and if an article were created, I would argue that it should retain the Spanish name with an English translation noted). I'm not trying to be argumentative and will leave it English followed by Spanish if you think it is necessary, but it isn't logical to me. It also probably means that La Liga throughout should be changed to The League, but in English that typically means (of Nations) or (of Women Voters). Please advise. SusunW (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for creating confusion. All I was aiming for is consistency. It's surprisingly hard to find any guidance on foreign names. I agree that it's most natural to have Spanish first. According to MOS:OTHERLANG we have to use the lang | es template for that. On reflection I would say that the English translation does not need to be given if the concept is already clear from the context. For example, in the lead I think "joined the first suffragist organization Liga Femínea Puertorriqueña that year." is sufficient without the literal translation. Maybe that is the trick for each of them? What do you think?

Not your fault, at all Edwininlondon, just our imprecise system of made-up rules. :) I can only tell you from having written over 1,000 articles on mostly non-English speaking women, if we don't put the English translation there, someone will come along and add it. Perhaps we just leave it so we don't have to flip them all back and in the lead put, Puerto Rican Feminist League (La Liga)? If that works for you, I'm okay with it. SusunW (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I see. Well, let's just leave what we have now then. I added the lang template to any remaining Spanish text, so screen readers do a better job.

• "in 1928 in La Perla" For those not in the know perhaps a bit of extra context would be good. Even a simple "the shantytown" would help

 Done SusunW (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "In 1927, after a lobbying campaign by La Liga on a bill submitted to the insular legislature passed the Senate, but failed in the House, Benet pressed for suffrage in Puerto Rico to be reviewed by the U.S. Congress in 1928." This sentence requires quite a bit of work to parse. Maybe split in two?

 Done (Actually, I split it in 3) SusunW (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "When it became apparent that the U.S. Congress .." It seemed probably an eternity at the time but between never getting to the House in 1928 and becoming apparent they would accept seems quite quick. Is there any info on what changed? If not, can we add something to contrast the two facts?

Oh good catch! Thank you. There was a 2nd bill. Fixed it.  Done SusunW (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "activism on behalf of women and education" Is there any more detail in the sources? probably not, but would be good to add if there is.

I wish, but no, the sources are pretty silent other than those 3 activities I mentioned: founding the Academy of History, going to that conference in Ohio, and the one in Texas. SusunW (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "The following year, she attended .." That is another "following year" within 2 lines of the first.

Input 1919.  Done SusunW (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• More redlinks I see. They sound notable.

I usually try to google the names I run across to see if there are sources. If I find a goodly number, I redlink them and add them to my never-ending list of Caribbean bios to work on. Rarely, as in the case of the brother I redlink someone who had apparent national prominence. SusunW (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "different birth date for Benet, i.e. her death record.." I would say "different birth date for Benet. For example, her death record .."

 Done SusunW (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• The source for 1876 seems missing. Or is it in source 5?

Yes, it is in source 5. 1910 census shows her to be 34 years old, i.e. born in 1876. SusunW (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think we need the dates of death for each of Felix's children, it distracts from the issue of birth date confusion. And perhaps even only give the year of birth for each child.

 Done SusunW (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• I really think what is in note 3 should be elevated to the main text. This is what she fought for.

 Done SusunW (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

Pass: This article passes all Good Article criteria: Well written prose, verifiable from reliable sources, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable and illustrated. Great work. I enjoyed reviewing this article.

Thank you so much Edwininlondon. It was a pleasure to work with you. I honestly enjoy a thorough review in which we are able to work together to improve an article. SusunW (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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 Yoninah (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Milagros Benet de Mewton, 1922

• ... that Milagros Benet de Mewton, a US citizen, fought for women's suffrage to extend to Puerto Rico because the 19th Amendment did not apply to US unincorporated territories? Source: "En marzo de 1924 la líder sufragista Milagros Benet de Mewton radicó un pleito legal, un ‘caso prueba’, en la Corte Suprema de Puerto Rico contra la Junta Local de Inscripciones, en el que exigía su derecho a inscribirse como electora para votar en la próximas elecciones. Esta acción en sí no era nueva en el foro judicial pues en 1920 la despalilladora Genara Pagán había hecho lo mismo, aunque, claro está, sin ningún resultado favorable. El principal alegato de Benet y sus abogados consistía en que la Ley Jones, implantada en la Isla desde 1917, le otorgaba el derecho al voto a todos los ciudadanos norteamericanos mayores de 21 años y que reunieran las demás condiciones prescritas por la Asamblea de Puerto Rico Benet de Mewton y sus asesores insistían en que las mujeres eran ciudadanas norteamericanas y que la Ley Electoral impuesta por la Asamblea Legislativa era la que restringía ese derecho a los ciudadanos que no fueran varones, lo que constituía una política discriminatoria que violentaba los derechos constitucionales de los ciudadanos y ciudadanas norteamericanos. No obstante, la Corte desestimó este argumento y dictaminó que la Enmienda XIX de la Constitución de los Estados Unidosno era aplicable a Puerto Rico y que correspondía a la legislatura estatal establecer las condiciones y cualificaciones de los electores."pp 42-43 (also English confirmation (pg. 49) that it did not apply to territories, but no mention of de Mewton.)

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Naomi Munakata

Improved to Good Article status by SusunW (talk) and Ipigott (talk). Nominated by SusunW (talk) at 17:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC).

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is an easy pass. A recently approved GA article, QPQ is met, the hook is very interesting (I never knew about that before), and I see no problem with the nomination. Jon698 Talk 14:56 14 April 2020