Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margaret Sanger/archive1#Phlsph7

:Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger is an important figure in United States history. From her beginnings as a nurse, a socialist, and a feminist, she evolved into a charismatic activist that worked to legalize birth-control. She founded Planned Parenthood, and was responsible for the gradual legalization of contraceptives in the U.S. between 1918 and 1965. To promote birth control, she endorsed eugenics, which has tarnished her reputation, because many eugenicists were racists. Six decades after her death, Sanger remains a highly visible figure in the U.S. because the anti-abortion movement frequently attacks Sanger on social media. The attacks focus on her support of eugenics and purported racism, so the article covers those areas in some depth.

The sections on contentious topics contain a relatively large number of footnotes and citations. This was a deliberate editorial choice, with the aims of: (a) assisting readers that come to the article to perform fact-checking; and (b) giving future editors resources to prevent edit wars. Regarding multiple citations on a single sentence: I'm aware of the essay Citation Overkill, and was careful to only include multiple citations where the sources each provided unique insight.

This is my third FA nomination related to the Progressive Era in American history (my prior FA articles from that era were W. E. B. Du Bois and Birth control movement in the United States). Credit to User:Tomobe03 for an excellent GA review on this Sanger article. Noleander (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:MargaretSanger-Underwood.LOC.jpg: when and where was this first published?

::Photo was taken in 1922 (according to Library of Congress at https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2004672785/ ); location was certainly in New York, USA. I cannot find proof that it was published before 1930, so I gather that is a problem? To be safe, I removed the photo from the article, and replaced it with a photo taken around 1919, and published in 1922, namely: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SangerAndSons.tiff?page=1 Proof of publication before 1930 is in the "Details" of that latter picture. Noleander (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• File:The_Woman_Rebel,_March_1914,_Vol_1,_No._1.gif: source link is dead

::I replaced that newsletter pic with similar Wiki Commons pic: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Woman_Rebel_issue1.jpg which has a working source link, namely https://files.libcom.org/files/styles/wide/public/images/library/The%20Woman%20Rebel%20v1.n01_0.jpg Noleander (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• File:Kitty_Marion_in_USA_selling_BC_Review_in_1925.jpg: source link is dead; what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:: {{yo|Nikkimaria}} That source link is dead, but another source is the Getty photos: https://photos.com/featured/kitty-marion-selling-birth-control-bettmann.html (but that source has a watermark). The photo was taken in 1925. Author is unknown, so author's death is unknown. Does that make it not free of copyright? I found proof that the photograph was published in 1925 (same year it was taken) and added the evidence into the Wiki Commons "details" page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kitty_Marion_in_USA_selling_BC_Review_in_1925.jpg Let me know if that is not sufficient. Noleander (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The image has a tag for life+100; it is very unlikely for that to be correct for a photo taken in 1925. If the work was first published in the US it's not necessary so I'd suggest just removing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay, I changed the PD tag for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kitty_Marion_in_USA_selling_BC_Review_in_1925.jpg from {{PD-old-100-expired}} to {{PD-old-expired}} . I presume that is what you were suggesting? Or if you meant to remove the picture from the article, I can do that instead. Noleander (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Neither - PD-old-expired still gives you a copyright status based on a lifespan that you cannot verify. Suggest changing instead to PD-US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Done. Noleander (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

;Lead

• "Clinic" could be de-linked in lead as per MOS:OL.
• : Done: Lead section suggestions above. Noleander (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

;Early life

• {{green|Her father, Michael Hennessey Higgins immigrated to...}} Could a comma be placed after "Higgins"?
• {{green|Sanger was born Margaret Louise Higgins in 1879 in Corning, New York,...}} Could "in 1879" be replaced with "September 14, 1879"?
• {{green|With financial help from two older sisters,...}} "Elder" is more commonly used when referring to human relationships.
• : Done: Early Life section suggestions above. Noleander (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

;Woman rebel

• Could feminism be linked in this section?
• {{green|Sanger became estranged from her husband in 1913, and the couple's divorce was finalized in 1921.}} Is it relevant to include these details in this section unless her rebellious nature directly led to the estrangement?
• : Done: Woman Rebel section suggestions above; except "estranged" suggestion. Reasoning: To treat the "personal life" information (marriage, divorce, relationships, etc) I studied FA-quality biographical articles and found two approaches (1) Have a "Personal Life" section; or (2) scatter facts throughout the chronological event sections. The former is typically used for celebrities & artists, but the latter is often (but not always) used for people with more serious careers, so I went with the latter. A subsequent decision was: (2a) Put personal facts at the end of each section; or (2b) in precise chronological position within paragraphs. (2a) was superior to (2b) because there are situations where deviating from a strictly-chronological sequence enables more flowing, readable prose. I reached a similar conclusion regarding sections: The time frames of each section are permitted to overlap a bit, in order to make the article more readable & understandable for the reader. Sequencing the events in the article in a strictly chronological order is tempting, but can damage the flow in many instances. Noleander (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

;Year as an outlaw

• {{green|In August 1914,...}} Could "1914" be replaced with "that year" in this sentence as the year is already mentioned in the very previous sentence?
• {{green|...where she was the first woman to chair a session;}} Could "was" be replaced with "became" here?
• The repetition of "William Sanger" in the last paragraph of this section could be avoided.
• : Done: Year As an Outlaws section suggestions above. Noleander (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Noleander}} A fine initial read. More to come. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:The birth control movement begins

:*Could the title of this section be section be improved upon?

:*{{green|In 1922, she married her second husband, wealthy businessman James Noah H. Slee.}} "Wealthy" should be dropped here.

:*{{green|Sanger believed that these efforts to limit family size...}} Could "she" be used here as "Sanger" is mentioned in the very previous sentence?

:*{{green|In 1920–1921, and intermittently until his death in 1946, she had a love affair with the English novelist H.G. Wells.}} The sentence is grammatically incorrect due to the misplaced adverb "intermittently." The correct sentence would be: {{blue|From 1920 to 1921, and intermittently until his death in 1946, she had a love affair with the English novelist H.G. Wells.}}

:*Minor suggestion-You could also drop "English" before "novelist" in the above sentence.

::: Done: "Birth Control Movement Begins" section suggestions above. Changed section title to "Start of a movement" which is not great, but I cannot think of anything better. I'm open to suggestions. Noleander (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:MSincccc (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::Outreach and expansion

::*{{green|Between 1920 and 1926, 567,000 copies of Woman and the New Race and The Pivot of Civilization were sold.}} You could introduce The Pivot of Civilization as "published in 1922" in this section rather than under the section on her "Views" later.

::::Done: Outreach section suggestions above; although I kept the 1922 publication year in the View section, since it is kinda required in that context. But I can remove it there if you think that is better. Noleander (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::African-American community

::*Harlem is linked more than once in this section. It constitutes duplicate linking.

::*{{green|The clinic was supported by an all African American advisory board consisting of 15 African American doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers; the clinic exclusively employed African American doctors, nurses, and social workers.}} This could be rephrased as:

::{{blue|The clinic was supported by an all-African American advisory board of 15 members and exclusively employed African American staff, including doctors, nurses, and social workers.}} This will avoid redundancy.

::*Could Angela Davis's brief description be reworked rather than just referring to her as "academic"?

::*You could replace "not successful" with"unsuccessful" in the last sentence of the section.

::::Done: African American community suggestions, above. Angela Davis sentence now begins "When African American academic and activist Angela Davis analyzed..." Noleander (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::MSincccc (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Planned parenthood

:::*{{green|Pincus recruited John Rock, Harvard gynecologist,...}} This sentence could be improved as:

:::{{blue|Pincus recruited John Rock, a gynecologist at Harvard,...}} Also, Harvard could be linked here as some readers might be unfamiliar with the name. MSincccc (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Done: Planned Parenthood section changes from above. Noleander (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Views

::::; Abortion

::::*{{green|In the early 1900s, when Sanger started on her path as an activist,...}} You could drop "on her path" in this case.

::::*{{green|In her view, contraception was beneficial for many reasons: It was safe,...}} "It" should be in lowercase in this sentence.

::::*{{green|That pamphlet was the one and only time she mentioned a technique for abortion.}} Is this emphasis("one and only") required in this sentence?

::::::Done: Abortion section suggestions, above. Changed "One and only" to "only". Noleander (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::; Free speech

::::*{{green|...where A. M. Schlesinger Sr. will read her statement of protest, April 16, 1929.}} Could the "will" before "read" be dropped from this image caption?

::::*{{green|...including Edward Bliss Foote and Theodore Schroeder.}} Could they be introduced here in brief?

::::*Could Albany, New York be linked in this sentence-{{green|the Catholic police commissioner of Albany prevented Sanger from speaking there;}}

::::::Done: Free Speech section suggestions, above. Changed pic caption to "Boston prohibited Sanger from speaking, so she donned a gag, and A. M. Schlesinger Sr. read her statement of protest." Noleander (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::; Eugenics

::::*{{green|At the other extreme were altruists who...}} Could "altruist" be linked to Altruism?

::::*{{green|Sanger was surrounded by influential people who approved of eugenics, including close friends Havelock Ellis[207][208] and H. G. Wells,...}} Wells was her long-term lover, as previously mentioned, rather than just a "close friend".

::::*Eugenics has been linked more than once in this section, which constitutes duplicate linking.

::::*{{green|Academic Dorothy Roberts wrote...}} Could her brief description be reworked rather than just mentioning her as an "academic"?

::::::Done: Eugenics section suggestions, above, except one: Did not implement "close friend" suggestion: the purpose of that sentence is to illustrate that many, perhaps most, of Sanger's close associates were supportive of eugenics. Naming the exact nature of each relationship is not essential. Further, Sanger's relationship with Ellis had several aspects: (a) he was an author of books Sanger read & used in her work; (b) teacher-pupil; (c) fellow activist; and (d) lover. Singling out "lover" would add an emphasis that could mislead and confuse readers, in my opinion. Noleander (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::; Legacy

::::*Could you link the article Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century in this sentence:

::::{{green|Time magazine designated Sanger as one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century.}}

::::*You could also mention "Time" in italics and keep "magazine" outside the link in the above sentence.

::::::Done: Legacy section suggestions, above. Noleander (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Noleander}} A fine article indeed. A few more suggestions for prose above. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{u|MSincccc}} Thanks for taking the time to do the review. I've addressed all your suggestions, except for a couple that I discuss above. Let me know if you have any additional suggestions for the article. Noleander (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Noleander I hope that my suggestions have been helpful. Support on prose. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

A really fine article. Too bad Sanger is on her way to becoming an unperson.

• Typo: "prevented women women"
• : Done. Noleander (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• : Move to Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• CS1 error on speech "The Morality of Birth Control".; has both a date and a year - remove the year.
• : Done. Noleander (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Same with fn 179
• : Done. Noleander (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Shouldn't fn 27, 29, 179, 202, 252, 253 be in the Works section? * And Sanger, Margaret (1919)?
• : Done - created explicit "source" entries in "Works" section for all articles by Sanger, and changed citations to those items to use "sfn" template, so all Sanger items are now in "Works" section.
• Why aren't fn 89, 96, 101, 115, 125, 152, 163, 168, 172, 201, 210, 218, 221, 249, 266 in the sources section? (At first I thought it was sources used only once, but that is not the case.)
• : Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency in the article's approach to citations. I made it uniform and now it is cleaner & consistent. The article now uses the following hybrid convention: Major sources (those used two or more times; OR an important work) get a bulletized entry in the Sources section (and related citations use "sfn" template); other sources (those which are minor AND only cited once) do not have a bulletized entry in Sources section (that is, the source info is stated directly in the citation).

:: I realize that many FA articles employ the elegant rule: All sources have a bulletized entry, and 100% of the citations use "sfn" template. For this article, I feel a hybrid approach is warranted: there are a lot of sources in this article, and some of them are trivial, and do not deserve a prominent bullet in the Sources section. That said, if you feel the new hybrid approach is not acceptable for FA, let me know and I'll change the article to use the "pure sfn" convention. Noleander (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• fn 56, 292m 304: page numbers?
• : These three sources are articles that were published in (reputable, serious) online journals, but not in the printed editions; so they do not have page numbers. I searched in WP Help to see if there is some way the "no page numbers available" fact should be indicated in the WP citation, but I could not find anything. Noleander (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• The article is well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;.

; Spot checks:

• fn 68, 21b, 2c, 138a, 292 - okay
• : "The columns gave advice to women and girls on love, masturbation, and sex; and emphasized the distinction between sex and love.[20][21a]": cannot find this in 20 or 21.
• ::Done. Noleander (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• : With regard to fn 68, I would have written: "They went to trial on 29 January 1917." The reason is that the more precise date adds to our collection of knowledge and aids someone trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. The ADB drives me nuts with stuff like this that then require me to check against another (often primary) source, thereby defeating the whole purpose.
• ::Done. Noleander (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• : fn 292: could use a page number so I don't have to read through it all.
• ::Done. Noleander (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the excellent comments. I'm addressing them now. May take a couple of days. Noleander (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Hawkeye7}} Thanks again for taking the time to perform a review. I implemented all of the suggestions you made. Regarding your suggestion "Why aren't fn 89, .... 266 in the sources section? (At first I thought it was sources used only once, but that is not the case.)" ... I adopted a new convention for the citations/sources, and explained it above (at "Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency in the article's approach to citations....."). If you think the new convention is not sufficient for FA quality, let me know and I'll change it to use the "100% sfn" convention. Noleander (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::It is fine, now that it is consistent. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello {{u|Noleander}}, happy to take a look at the article. I'm not very familiar with the topic so I'll focus on prose. After a first look, it seems fine overall except for a few smaller issues.

• {{green|Sanger was first-wave feminist, and believed that woman should be}} add "a" after "was"; should this be "women" instead of "woman"?
• {{green|Sanger was first-wave feminist, and believed that ... She was an adherent of the eugenics movement, and believed that}} those two consecutive sentence have exactly the same structure, which can sound repetitive. For the 2nd sentence, you could use something like "As an adherent of the eugenics movement, she argued that..."
• {{green|immigrated to the U.S. with her family during the Great Famine..}} remove one period
• {{green|Sanger's political interests, her emerging feminism and her nursing experience led her}} Oxford comma after "feminism"
• {{green|overpopulation led to poverty, famine and war. }} Oxford comma after "famine"
• {{green|In her role as president of the ABCL, she chafed at bureaucratic interference from second-generation reformers on the board of directors. Seeking more independence, in 1928 she resigned as the president of the ABCL and}} For better flow, you could use "As president of the ABCL, she ... Seeking more independence, she resigned from the presidency in 1928 and..."
• {{green|Sanger invested a great deal of effort promoting birth control}} I think there should be an "in" before "promoting"
• {{green|resulting in 8,000 to 17,000 woman's deaths from complications.}} should it be "women's deaths"?
• {{green|U.S. Supreme court}} "court" should be uppercase
• {{green|and even birth control literature were illegal in much of the U.S..}} As far as I'm aware, there should only be one period even when a sentence ends with an abreviation.
• {{green|Her mother, Anne Purcell Higgins, immigrated to the U.S. with her family during the Great Famine.[2].}} remove the period after "[2]"
• {{green|and social activists, such John Reed}} add "as" after "such"
• {{green|if she promised to not break the law again}} maybe "promised not to break" for better flow
• My understanding of commas that connect clauses (i.e. not list items as for Oxford commas) is that there should be a comma if the two sentences have different subjects (e.g. He wears a hat, and she carries a bag) but no comma if they have the same subject (e.g. He wears a hat and carries a bag). The article does not follow this rule in various cases, for example {{green|Sanger was first-wave feminist, and believed that}} and {{green|Sanger was called back to Sadie's apartment, and found that}}. However, I'm not sure how binding that rule is. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank-you so much for the excellent prose feedback. I'll implement those changes later today. Noleander (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{yo|Phlsph7}} Thanks again for the review. I've implemented all of the suggestions above. Regarding the commas issue ("... there should be a comma if the two sentences have different subjects ... but no comma if they have the same subject...") I did implement your suggestion; however, the way I decide where to put commas is: I read the paragraph out loud, as if I'm speaking in a formal setting. I listen to where I naturally pause: short pauses get a comma; medium pauses get a semicolon (or n-dash); and longer pauses get a period. Beats remembering grammar rules :-). Noleander (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Looks good so far. A few more that I came across:

::::* {{green|and another – Griswold v Connecticut – which legalized contraception}} should there be a period after "v"?

::::* {{green|Before her death, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Griswold v Connecticut,}} also here?

::::* {{green|and included 'reckless' people that were incapable of}} replace "that" with "who"

::::* {{green|Byrne was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse ... she chose a thirty-day sentence in workhouse}} I think it should also be "a workhouse" in the second sentence

::::* {{green|was the Comstock Act – which banned dissemination of information about contraception."}} I think it should be a comma rather than a dash. There are a few more cases in the text using "... – which ...".

::::* {{green|a story that Sanger would recount in her speeches: while she was working as a nurse, }} for better flow maybe "a story that Sanger often recounted in her speeches: while working as a nurse,"

::::* {{green|Sanger became estranged from her husband in 1913, and the couple's divorce was finalized in 1921.."}} for better flow: "...and their divorce..."

::::* {{green|Sanger conducted a long-term, though infrequent, love affair}} maybe more natural "Sanger had a long-term, though infrequent, love affair"

::::* {{green|She wrote several books which had a nationwide impact}} I think it should be "that" rather than "which" since it is a restrictive relative clause

::::* {{green|Sanger was exposed to free speech principles early in her career: in New York, Emma Goldman introduced Sanger to physician Edward Bliss Foote and lawyer Theodore Schroeder, co-founders of the Free Speech League}} for better flow: "Sanger was exposed to free speech principles early in her career, when Emma Goldman introduced Sanger to physician Edward Bliss Foote and lawyer Theodore Schroeder, co-founders of the Free Speech League, in New York."

::::Phlsph7 (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{yo|Phlsph7}} I implemented all of the suggestions enumerated above (dated 14 March). You have great eyes. Noleander (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks, that takes care of the remaining concerns. Support on prose. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Wanted to review this for a while, let's see whether I manage to do so today. —Kusma (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Lead: "collaborated in the development of the first birth control pill" sounds like she was part of the scientific team; I think this oversells the body's "Sanger persuaded philanthropist Katharine McCormick to provide funding for biologist Gregory Pincus to develop the first birth control pill". Perhaps "influenced the development"? (I see that this comes back later in the lead in more detail; does it need to be mentioned in the opening paragraph at all?)

:: Regarding the wording: I agree that "collaborated" is not the best. I've replaced it with "instrumental". But "involved" or "catalyst" or "initiated" or "facilitated" may also be good.

:: Regarding birth control pill in the Lead: The birth control pill involvement is vital information in the lead because (a) it gives readers a sense of the duration of her work: from 1914 to late 1950s; (b) gives a sense of breadth of her work: from contraception to free speech to pharmaceuticals; (c) helps understand the global impact (beyond U.S.) she had; and (d) It also signifies her flexibility and willingness to move with the times and continue empowering women even as technology changed. Because words are so precious in the lead, it is more important, in my assessment, to focus on events that define the reach/extent/scope/impact of her life, rather than adhering to a simplistic rule that limits the lead to those events that occupied her for the largest number of her working hours. Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning Sanger's socialist background? I know this is the lead, so we can skip over many things, but I was wondering immediately how she became a first wave feminist.

::I agree that it would be nice to include a brief mention of her socialism in the lead. Unfortunately, I've tried several ways of inserting that fact, and I cannot find anything acceptable: every attempt forces me to add 2+ sentences to make it comprehensible; and then it becomes over-represented in the lead. Some sources suggest that the socialist/anarchist aspect of her character peaked around 1911-1916, but then she compromised her socialist principles in the 1920s and 1930s in order to make progress with her birth control cause. I don't recall sources saying she did anything significant related to unions, classes, or workers after 1920 or 1925. So, socialism would be nice in the Lead, but I don't think it is worth sacrificing other parts of the lead to insert it. Noleander (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Fair enough. —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Early life: we have the 11 surviving children twice (perhaps this can be consolidated), but no indication how old Margaret was when her mother died.

::Done. Eliminated duplicate "11"; new sentence reads {{green| In 22 years, Anne Higgins conceived 18 times, and gave birth to 11 live babies. She died at the age of 50, when Margaret was 19 years old.}} Also added footnote: {{green| Sanger tersely wrote in her 1931 autobiography: “Mother bore eleven children; she died at forty-eight. My father lived until he was eighty.” Her mother was actually 50 years old when she died.}} Noleander (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Woman rebel: Did they move from Westchester to Hastings? If it is the same house, it is confusing to give two different names to the location.

::Done. Changed to use Hastings in both places. Hastings is the town, within Westchester county. Noleander (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• "theological grounds" as she doesn't seem to have studied theology much, I would prefer "religious grounds"?

::Done. Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• New York Call columns: there seems to have been a first brush against censorship (I just read Chesler p. 66) with the Call publishing an empty box in protest. I found that interesting, but I understand if you are running into length concerns. It should be worth at least a footnote.

::Done. That's an outstanding suggestion. I added the following into the Free Speech section: {{green|Her first brush with censorship came when she wrote a column, What Every Girl Should Know, for the New York Call. Her final article in that series, scheduled for publication on February 9, 1913, discussed syphilis and gonorrhea, so Comstock issued an order prohibiting publication. In response, Sanger and the Call replaced the column with a statement: "What Every Girl Should Know — NOTHING! — by order of the Post-Office Department".}} Noleander (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• "William Sanger, gave a copy of Family Limitation to a representative of anti-vice politician Anthony Comstock" at this point I thought he was selling out his estranged wife. But in the next sentence he is tried and convicted (for what? We have only been told that mailing information about contraception was illegal). Clearly there is something I don't understand about this story; could you explain? Perhaps you need to explain further what was legal and what was illegal at the time.

::Yes, that needs to be improved. I changed it so {{green|Early in 1915, an undercover representative of anti-vice politician Anthony Comstock asked Sanger's estranged husband, William, for a copy of Family Limitation, and William obliged....}}

:: The legal issues are complex. There were federal laws and state laws; and there were laws that were enforced and laws that were ignored. The federal law is the famous Comstock Act (still in effect today) that primarily prohibited mailing, but also prohibited distributing (by hand) certain "obscene" materials (the latter was enforced very erratically). And New York state also had its own laws that prohibited, for example, distributing info on birth control. Her husband was arrested under the federal law. Prosecutors permitted condoms to be sold, but enforced the law against diaphragms. The body text is probably not the best place to go into detail about the many confusing laws, but certainly each sentence needs to be self-explanatory and not confuse readers. Footnote 61 (" Additional insight into the anti-obscenity laws ..." ) provides sources for curious readers that want more detail about the laws. Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• The start of a movement: "northern European countries ... Dutch birth control clinic" Why mention northern European countries here? I am not aware of any definition of Northern Europe that includes the Netherlands.

::Done. Thanks for pointing out that mistake. I changed "northern european" to "european". I think it is better to leave the "european" sentence in the article (in addition to the "Dutch clinic" sentence) because it conveys the sense that multiple countries had more liberal/advanced polices towards contraception (not only Netherlands). Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• When did Ethel Byrne start working with her sister? (It might be worth mentioning her existence earlier than when she gets arrested, perhaps in the Early life section).

::Done. Added new sentence indicating when sister first started to help Sanger: {{green|She was unable to find a physician to join the staff, so she turned to her sister, Ethel Byrne (a nurse), to fill the medical role.}} also added a footnote: {{green|Other clinic workers included Fania Mindell (administrative help) and Elizabeth Stuyvesant (social worker). }} Noleander (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• There are some very short paragraphs here (Birth Control Review, HG Wells) that do not look so pretty. It would perhaps help to mention that Wells died in 1946, so the affair apparently went on for a very long time and well beyond the start of her next marriage.

::Partly done. I added year of death to the Wells affair sentence.

::Regarding short paragraphs: Sometimes short paragraphs are okay ... provided they are used sparingly, and there is not much to say on the subject. I think the few short paragraphs in the article are fine. If there is a particular short paragraph that you think is not appropriate, let me know.

• "bureaucratic interference from second-generation reformers" what are "second-generation reformers" and why did this cause a schism?

::Done. The point is that she wanted to be in total control, but the board of the ABCL was micro-managing Sanger, so she left to run her own kingdom: the BCCRB. I improved it to: {{green|As president of the ABCL, she chafed at bureaucratic interference from younger members of the board of directors. Seeking more independence, she resigned from the presidency in 1928 and took full control of the CRB, renaming it the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB). The two organizations, ABCL and BCCRB, continued to collaborate, but Sanger had complete control over the BCCRB's operations. This marked the beginning of a schism that would last until 1939.}}. Let me know if it is still unsatisfactory. Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Planned Parenthood: "In the late 1930s, Sanger began spending the winters in Tucson, Arizona" this is one of many "personal life" things (like some of the affairs) interspersed in the article, often in very short sentences and (in this case) not fully fitting the timeline (we just had her in 1950s Japan). I am wondering whether it might be better to collect these in a "Personal life" section?

::That's a difficult decision. I studied FA-quality biographical articles and found that they tended to fall into two classes: (a) celebrities and artists (especially if still alive) have "personal life" section; (b) serious historical figures (activists, scientists, etc) scatter that info thru the chronological sections. So, I adopted the latter convention. In this article, the "interspersed" approach is especially appropriate, because her husbands played key roles in Sanger's activism (joining socialist party; getting arrested; smuggling contraceptives, etc).

::Yes, there are some events in the article that are not strictly in chronological order. However, the article does follow a consistent policy: The algorithm I followed was: (1) Create thematic sections; (2) within each section, events should be chronological; (3) Themes of the section take priority over strictly adhering to chronology (so it is okay to jump forward/backward in time when transitioning from one section to the next ... e.g. this happens when entering and exiting the African American section); and (4) Put the "personal life" stuff at the end of each section, even it it violates chronology.

::It is a balancing act. I could change the text to improve one thing (e.g. chronological order), but then the thematic grouping would get damaged, etc etc. I think the article strikes a good balance as it is, but if you still feel strongly about a particular issue, let me know. Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I am aware from my own work on biographies that sometimes themes are more important than chronology. Some of the personal life stuff (like moving to Tucson) didn't seem super strongly attached to its section, but I don't have a good suggestion what to do with it. —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Footnotes (numbering from Special:Permanentlink/1280489767): Footnote i is not a full sentence and should perhaps use some coord template to link to all kinds of map services instead of sending the reader to Google maps.

::Done. Good catch; I improved the sentence and removed the external link entirely. Noleander (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Footnote k seems unsourced; footnote l has an implicit source

::Done. Added cite for [k] (1st clinic vs 2nd clinic). Replaced cite for [l] (street address) with more solid cite. Noleander (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Footnote af: "they believed fit parents would make use it" remove "make" or add "of"

::Done. Added "of". Noleander (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Footnote ah: "which encouraged parents to reproduce if they are deemed fit" were deemed fit? Again in the following sentence

::Done. "are" -> "were" Noleander (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Overall a very interesting article on a truly important woman. —Kusma (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the excellent feedback. I'm in the process of addressing the issues you raised. I'll notify you when I'm done. Noleander (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Kusma}} Thanks again for the very useful feedback. I implemented the changes you suggested in your bullets, except a couple. In the couple of items that I did not alter the article, I explained my rationale above, below the suggestion. If you think any of my responses leave the article below FA-standards, please let me know. Noleander (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Changes look good. I do have a concern about the Japanese 1954 story. I tried to verify "first foreigner to speak to the Diet" and did not find anything better than the [https://sanger.hosting.nyu.edu/articles/heart_to_japan/ Sanger newsletter] you cite, which is a bit weak for such a claim (would be better to have a history of the Japanese Diet or something like that as a source). Then I found [https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/5420be9c-a696-41c1-bca9-b242afff7004/content this thesis]; on p. 107 it says she addressed a committee meeting, which is a bit less impressive than addressing a plenary session. Could you dig a bit deeper and clarify what happened and what exactly she did first? —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Okay, I'll devel deeper into the details of that visit, and make sure the WP article is 100% accurate. Off the top of my head, the sources seem pretty solid: Footnote 105 (the newsletter) is written by Esther Katz, the foremost expert on Sanger. Another source is 106 (Katō, Shidzue (1984). "Facing Two Ways: The Story of My Life") which has a note from the editor about the visit to the Diet. And then the dissertation you mention, which says the visit to the Diet is mentioned on page 101 of Katō's book "A Fight for Womenʼs Happiness" - which I don't have access to, yet. Anyway, I'll look into it. Noleander (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{yo|Kusma}} I cannot find anything (in English) published in 1954 about the Diet talk. So, I removed the item from the Margaret Sanger article. I may try to find more info (WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#News_about_speech_to_Japanese_Diet_in_April_1954) ... but for purposes of this FA nomination, the sentence is gone. Noleander (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Noleander, I found [https://archive.org/details/culturalevolutio0000keav/page/190/mode/2up?q=%22japanese+diet%22+%22first+foreigner%22 this], which claims "first foreigner to address the Diet". And then I thought I should just check out Japanese Wikipedia. They also say "first foreigner to speak to the Diet" but cite [https://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/#/detail?minId=101914237X02819540415¤t=2 the official minutes of the Diet] that have her at the Welfare Committee. My suggestion would be to go for "first foreigner to address the Diet" and a footnote that says she spoke to the Welfare committee. The Japanese Wikipedia also has the claim that MacArthur didn't want to allow her into Japan and that it took lobbying by Eleanor Roosevelt to facilitate her 1952 visit, not sure if that is interesting to you. (I can read some Chinese, but only very little Japanese, so most of this information is brought to you courtesy of Google Translate and could be wrong). —Kusma (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{yo|Kusma}} Thanks for taking the time to do the research. The "The cultural evolution of postwar Japan..." book is good; too bad the year it cites is wrong by 2 years (1952 vs 1954 :-). The Official Minutes of the Diet are super interesting (I'm reading them via Google Translate).

:::::::

:::::::I posted a request in WP:RX at WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#News_about_speech_to_Japanese_Diet_in_April_1954 and a volunteer there found contemporaneous mentions of the speech in The Japan Times (English-language newspaper in Japan) ... the speech was 15 April 1954, according to the newspaper. So we now have plenty of sources saying that the speech happened, and it was given to the Welfare Committee.

:::::::

:::::::What is lacking is a knowledgeable Japanese scholar saying that Sanger was the _first_ foreigner (or foreign woman). One option for the Sanger WP article is to state that she addressed a committee of the Diet, and exclude the "first foreigner" claim". There is a real chance that Sanger was not the first ... this may be puffery that was initiated by Kato Shidzue, and has been repeated by others. I'll keep hunting. Noleander (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{yo|Kusma}} I implemented this approach to the 1954 visit: in the body text, the article now states: {{green|In 1954, Sanger returned to Japan for her fourth visit, and gave a speech before a committee of the National Diet on the topic of "Population Problems and Family Planning"}}. And I added a new footnote for that sentence that states: {{green| Sanger was invited to give the speech by fellow birth control activist Katō Shidzue, who was then a senator in the Diet. The short speech was given on April 15, 1954, to the Public Welfare committee. Sanger wanted to visit earlier, but was prohibited from visiting by Douglas Macarthur. Some sources state that Sanger was the first foreign woman to give a speech to the Diet or one of its committees.}} New citations include the Nippon Times newspaper caption; and the "The cultural evolution of postwar Japan..." book. Let me know if you think this approach does not meet FA quality. Noleander (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Looks great, I am happy to support. Perhaps you can link to Birth control in Japan in one of the Japan-related sentences (probably the 1922 visit is best). —Kusma (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Link to Birth control in Japan was added. Thanks for the valuable feedback! Noleander (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{FACClosed|promoted}} FrB.TG (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC){{Fa bottom}}