Talk:White Feather Campaign

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:White Feather Campaign/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Levixius (talk · contribs) 23:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid this article currently has serious issues which mean that it is not up to GA standard and I am quickfailing this review. This is thus not a comprehensive GA review, but as a summary of issues I found when looking at it:

• Copyright issues (QF#2/GACR#2d): text copied directly from the sources includes the entire paragraph beginning Although Admiral Fitzgerald, as well as propagandists Lord Esher and Arthur Conan Doyle..., and the sentences The Order and their recruiting methods quickly spread across Britain. Women of all backgrounds contributed their influence to the war effort. Slightly changed from the source but still problematic I spotted These so-called “white feather girls” combed streets, trams, theaters and other public spaces, pinning feathers onto unsuspecting young men
• The entire §In popular culture section is problematic. Given that this article is about the First World War campaign, obviously neither the 1902 novel nor the 1907 novel are relevant; for other media mentioned it is either not clear that the reference is specifically to the WWI campaign rather than the concept of white feathers more broadly (e.g. the Marillion song seems to refer to the use of the white feather by pacifist organisations and does not refer WWI at all), or it is unclear that the appearance of the white feather in those media is anything more than trivial (e.g. our article on Rilla of Ingleside has a long plot summary which does not mention the white feather once). See WP:IPC for more information on writing an "in popular culture" section.
• Verification issues (GACR#2). I found several claims which simply did not seem supported by the cited references. E.g. The campaign was also renewed for the Second World War (not supported by Benvindo); The psychological toll of receiving a white feather was significant. Men who were unable to enlist due to medical reasons or other exemptions faced public humiliation, leading to feelings of emasculation and depression. (not supported by Johnston-White, which isn't about the white feather campaign at all); Britain also started recruiting children (if anything contradicted by the cited source!); Politicians who had opposed women’s suffrage before the war, such as former Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, changed their position in 1917–1918 in part because they were impressed by women’s patriotic service (Asquith entirely unmentioned in cited source)
• At least one claim which definitely needs citation is simply entirely uncited: often causing mental suffering and suicides among men (this also fails GACR#1b, as an important claim in the lead not mentioned in the body of the article violates WP:LEAD)
• Synthesis/OR: the cited sources support that women's contributions to the war effort was a factor in granting suffrage in the Representation of the People Act 1918 – but they do not support that the white feather campaign specifically played any role.

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've updated some of the text per your review. Also, the statement about suicides in the lede has been elaborated and properly cited on in the further body of text, to conform with MOS:CITELEAD. LΞVIXIUS💬 16:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)