Talk:1913 Studebaker strike

Latest comment: 2 years ago by GhostRiver in topic GA Review
Good article1913 Studebaker strike has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 6, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1913 Studebaker strike is regarded as the first major labor strike in the automotive industry?
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 17, 2023.

Did you know nomination edit

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Created by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 18:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC).Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Article is new enough, long enough, copyvio "unlikely", its well-sourced and well annotated. Plus its really interesting. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Modified ALT0 to T:DYK/P3

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:1913 Studebaker strike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 19:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply


I'll be taking a look at this! — GhostRiver 19:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

Infobox and lede edit

  • "manufacturing plant. Thus the police banned large marches and parades." → "manufacturing plant and a subsequent city ban on large marches and parades."
    • Done.
  • "began hiring replacement workers - strikebreakers" → "began hiring strikebreakers"
    • Done.


Background edit

  • "were not long-lasting." → "were short-lived"
    • Done.
  • "responding to requests from autoworkers in the city" → "in response to seveal requests" (decrease repetition of "autoworkers in the city")
    • Done, with grammatical fix to "several".
  • Subject/verb agreement with the quote: the city was "among", but is only one "metropolis"
    • Fixed.
  • "IWW organizers began focusing their efforts"
    • Done.
  • "with the organizers initially pushing for" → "who initially pushed for"
    • Done.
  • The last sentence has a semicolon where there should be a period
    • Fixed.

Course of the strike edit

  • "(AFL,)" → "(AFL),"
    • Fixed.
  • "craft union oriented" → "craft union-oriented"
    • Fixed.
  • Unpaired right parenthetical after "at odds with the IWW"
    • Fixed.
  • Commas around "presided over by Robbins"
    • Done.

Aftermath edit

  • "organized labor at Detroit" → "organized labor in Detroit"
    • Done.

References edit

  • Good

General comments edit

  • Both photos are in the public domain and are relevant to the article
  • I'd recommend moving the first one up a paragraph to avoid disrupting the header line, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION
    • Done.
  • No stability concerns in the revision history
  • Copyvio score looks great at 10.7%

Putting on hold now to allow nominator to address comments. Feel free to ping me with any questions. — GhostRiver 19:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

GhostRiver, just pinging to let you know that I made some edits to the article that address your comments. Thank you for starting this review, and if there are any further questions, comments, or concerns about the article, please reach out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Made one additional edit myself; otherwise, looks good to pass! — GhostRiver 21:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply