Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baltimore railroad strike of 1877/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2017 [1].

Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 edit

Nominator(s): Timothyjosephwood 16:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of a series on the events of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 as they occurred in particular cities. This is my first FA nomination, so feel free to correct anything I haven't done correctly. TimothyJosephWood 16:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hchc2009: Some good work here, and a really interesting theme. A couple of quick thoughts:

  • Worth giving it a scrub for metric/imperial equivalents.
  • Also worth checking for abbreviations, e.g "when this wasn't feasible"
  • And for underlinking (e.g. "Springfield breech loading rifle" could be usefully linked)
  • And check that each reference is in a consistent style (e.g. do you give just publisher, or location and publisher etc.)
  • My main issue is the use of the newspapers of the period as reliable secondary sources. In some cases, you're carefully attributing the information to the newspaper, which makes clear that it's not a statement that's been reviewed by a modern historian, but a contemporary piece of press reporting ("On July 26, The Sun reported 3,000 draymen, 600 oil men, and 1,500 stevedores out of work as a result of the embargo.") We don't really know if this is accurate or not, but it is clear that it is a newspaper statement. In other cases, a newspaper account is listed as fact, e.g. "There was a general hope that owing to the imminent increase in traffic due to the transportation of harvested crops, the fireman would be able to make daily trips, and that the company could arrange for them to return home on passenger trains when this wasn't feasible, which would save them from the burden of long layovers away from home." I'd be strongly advising an article on labour disputes in the 19th century to be drawing whenever possible on reliable modern academic sources, and to be extremely scrupulous about attributing any press material to the newspaper concerned. (WP:PRIMARY would apply here).
  • Images look generally fine, but I note that :File:Great Railroad Strike plaque, Baltimore 01 (cropped).jpg is justified by "Marker placed by the Maryland Historical Trust, who retains neither copyright for the physical representation of the marker nor the text." - I can't see any explanation for why this should be the case. The uploader, Permstrump, implies that he/she is acting on behalf of the Trust in releasing the text in the image, but there is no evidence for this, and the licensing then conflicts with the justification, arguing that the Trust owns the copyright to the image. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will work to address the issues identified. As to the image, we went around with this for a couple of weeks, and in the end I just emailed them, and they were the ones who confirmed that they don't retain copyright on the markers. TimothyJosephWood 20:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The email confirming that they've released the text under the license on the file needs to be registered on the OTRS system on Wikimedia. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've largely taken care of the issues above, except for emailing OTRS, which I will take care of tonight or this weekend as soon as I find the email. Just to clarify, the image was taken by the user, I requested it myself, but the copyright issue wasn't the image, but the likeness in the sense that it was a... sort of sculpture for copyright purposes and freedom of panorama only applies to inhabited/inhabitable buildings. TimothyJosephWood 19:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, the article currently contains 45 separate references to period newspaper articles. Nine of these have not been attributed, because the news article is used along side another secondary source for the claim supported. The remaining 36 citations have been attributed either to the paper by name, or referenced variously as new stories or news reports. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support (conditional on other comments being addressed) comments from auntieruth edit

I reviewed this at GA and thought it was interesting and well done at that level. I guess I assumed it would go through the MilHist A class review first, before here, but so be it.

I agree with HcHc2009 that that there is a great reliance on the newspapers, which in the nineteenth century were notoriously unreliable and likely to be owned by a local capitalist. Whether it's too great or not, I'm not sure. It would help to see a separate list of sources that segregates scholarly works from the newspapers. This way we could see where the weight actually lies.
There also needs to be greater explanation of the Long Depression, as a world-wide phenomenon and its impact on wages throughout the US and indeed the world, particularly iin areas of rapidly expanded industrialization. It doesn't need to be much, but we need some greater context other than the
There also needs to be greater clarity of how this strike fits into the broader strikes that spread across the country. I thought the day-by-day blows of what led to the strike could be condensed into paragraphs, instead of their own headings--again, for GA, it worked for me, but for Wikipedia's best work, it doesn't. You mention the Great Railroad strike 1877 in the lead but not in the body of the article, and this strike had a ripple effect across the country, beginning in Martinsburg and spreading outward.
It is underlinked. For example, I added link to Community_College_of_Baltimore_County. there are several others that need linking.
Re the Marker: I suggest you contact nancy.kurtz@maryland.gov and ask whether the marker is Fair Use. auntieruth (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy isn't who I contacted originally, but she was who I was eventually put into contact with. I have forwarded the email from September to OTRS for verification.
As to underlinking, I went through the whole thing and linked everything I could think of yesterday. If there's much more I'm afraid I'm missing it.
  • it's better now.
As to sources, the lions share of the article relies on McCabe, Dacus, and Meekins, all secondary overviews of the national riots in which Baltimore is a chapter or two, but all themselves 19th Century, and accounting for a combined 84 citations between them. Stover, Stowell, and Laurie feature most prominently among modern sources, with a combined 20 citations. The heaviest reliance on period news (where there is not also concurrent secondary citation) is in the sections following the end of open violence, because most of the sources start to drop off in detail at this point, and move on to the "exciting stuff" elsewhere, namely things like burning half of Pittsburgh to the ground (see Pittsburgh railway riots), and don't really concern themselves with things like the price of cabbage or how many idle ships are in the harbor.
Part of the problem with nineteenth century sources is their tendency to exaggerate. Such sentences as The first parade of the 5th Regiment through the city following the crisis was on October 15. They marched that day with 400 counted among their ranks could be adjusted with some judicious qualifications: "On 15 October, the 5th Regiment's first post-crisis parade included (according to contemporary accounts) 400 men of the regiment." This way you document what the contemporary sources say without giving them undue weight. auntieruth (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the content issues, I can try to work on those after the next few days, and maybe start digging back through the state archives and other sources. Right now I've wasted most of my morning on Commons, and I have to go adult for a while. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adulting does us all in, doesn't it!  :) You could use a phrase in the lead that refers to the Depression and economc woes of the late 1870s. auntieruth (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I also tried to address all of your concerns above, by adding more context in the first section, and redoing the headers throughout. As to the newspapers, as I indicate above, I have trimmed some that just wasn't central to the story, some I have left unattributed in cases where the newspaper is only one of multiple citations used for the content (often in cases where many sources are cited as giving estimates), and in 36 other cases the news should now be properly attributed in the prose. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AuntieRuth, at the risk of being a little pedantic, the Commons can't accept fair use justifications; the questions have to be: a) who owns the copyright to the text on the sign?; and, b) if the Maryland Government does own the copyright, have they agreed to release it under the licence stated? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be even more pedantic (it just goes down hill from here), the issue wasn't necessarily the text itself, but the entire three dimensional presentation of the marker as a public sculpture. The picture itself was taken by the editor standing on the street corner (not taken from Maryland's archives), and so they own the copyright to the "image", but freedom of panorama doesn't apply to 3D works of non-human-inhabitable public "art" in the US, so if the "art" takes up a substantial portion of the image (see also Commons:De minimis), then the rights of Maryland to the "representation" or "likeness" of the marker still applies, except they claim no copyright for the representation, and they're the only ones who can, so the original copyright of the image, of which a portion is made up of the "likeness", should be retained by the editor who took the picture. TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Under US law, though, you have copyright over your text/work regardless of whether you "claim" it. You can explicitly release your work into the Public Domain, or under various other suitable licences, but that would need to be recorded using OTRS, using the email that you're lodging with the system. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the image pending verification. TimothyJosephWood 16:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the text once more:
  • Vice President (with caps) refers to the political office. Without caps, it refers to a corporate or academic office. This occurs several times....
  • Remember to link the first instance in the body of the article (such as Baltimore). auntieruth (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
auntieruth, fixed the title capitalization. As far as first mention, it's not totally clear where the errors are. I've reviewed this variously, and if there are glaring errors I'm afraid you may have to be more specific. Baltimore for example, is linked to already in the first sentence of the lead. TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always understood that we need to link in the first instance of the body of the text as well. I could be corrected, but most of the articles I've edited have been done this way. auntieruth (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've got most of them, plus a few minor tweaks here. Please feel free to revert if necessary. Support on prose, conditional upon addressing comments from reviewers Ceranthor and Mike Christie. auntieruth (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:DUPLINK, wikilinks should appear only once in an article, but may be duplicated in the first mention following the lead (among other instances) if it is helpful for the reader. So overall, once is standard, and more is a judgment call. TimothyJosephWood 17:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (in addition to the marker issues noted above)

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • File:Camden_Station_in_1865.jpg: reprint was published 1990 - when was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I... fairly thought it was a settled issue since it was taken in the US, and in apparently 1865, meaning that if the author were literally born on the day they took the image, they would have needed to have lived to the age of 82, in order for 70 years to not have elapsed since their death. TimothyJosephWood 22:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on when it was first published - see this chart. Life+70 isn't a blanket rule in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I've hit a dead end on this one. It's originally credited to the B&O Museum but I was unable to find it on their digitized archives, and the 1990 book doesn't give any other indication about the history of it. It's available from dozens of other sites, but it's been on commons for almost ten years, so they may be taking their lead from us on the copyright status. I have contacted both the original uploader, who is an admin on commons and so hopefully more capable than I, as well as the museum itself via email. TimothyJosephWood 14:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the image for now, pending verification. TimothyJosephWood 16:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: The uploader has verified the original publication date of the image and added the details to the image description. It has now been added back into the article. TimothyJosephWood 18:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Tintor2

The article is in good shape but there are somethings bothering me:

  • Removing the Google Books links. I have been criticized about them in the past due to copyright violations.
  • Using the archive bot, I archived all references. This is needed for the source review, so don't worry about archiving them
  • Avoid one or two sentence paragraphs long. Imagine you are writing a formal letter.

Ping me when you solved the issues. Also, I would appreciate if you could comment on the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto/archive3. Regards and good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tintor2. I have also archived a few cite webs, and removed the google books urls from works not in the public domain. I have tweaked wording throughout the article, but if there are still places you think need adjustment, feel free to point them out and I will address the issues.
As to Naruto, I'm afraid I'm not much help. This is my first go at FA, and I'm not sure my opinion means very much, expecially given the number of things on this article that I've had to go back and fix thus far. TimothyJosephWood 16:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giving you my support. Good work with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor edit

  • The Baltimore railroad strike occurred in Baltimore, Maryland, as part of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, nationwide strikes and civil unrest following the global depression and economic downturns of the 1870s. - I think the Great Railroad strike of 1877 bit should be split off into a separate sentence.
  • Strikes continued mostly peacefully until July 20 - rm mostly
  • Combine the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead
  • The 5th Regiment. marched south from their armory above the old Richmond Market on North Howard Street, to the B. & O. Station. - Is there supposed to be a period after regiment?
  • had far-reaching implications for US industry, shuttering more than a hundred railroads - Does shuttering mean closing down? I've never seen it used this way and I'm not sure it's encyclopedic language rather than slang
  • including violence in Reading, Scranton and Shamokin, Pennsylvania; a bloodless general strike in St. Louis, Missouri; a short lived uprising in Chicago, Illinois; and in the worst case, rioting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania that left 61 dead, 124 injured, and saw much of the city's center burned, including more than a thousand rail cars destroyed - should be separated into a new sentence, and the grammar needs to be fixed
  • In many cases, what began as a peaceful action of organized labor, attracted the masses of working discontent and unemployed of the depression, along with others who took opportunistic advantage of the chaos. - In many cases seems vague
  • State and federal troops followed the unrest along the lines - followed the unrest? along the lines? This makes little sense to me
  • However, the number of unemployed along the line was so great owing to the ongoing depression, the company had no difficulty replacing the striking workers. - Need a "that" or something similar to link the clauses. As is it's a run-on
  • Can you change the header for July 16-19? I don't like the repetition of 'events'; maybe just the dates would be sufficient?
  • Newspapers reported a meeting held of rail workers who were sympathetic to the strike - held by, not held of?
  • That same day in Baltimore, hundreds of manufacturing workers struck. - While this is grammatically fine, I think it would be better if you said went on strike
  • Baltimore saw the first act of violence to emerge from the strike. - more concise as "the first act of violence in Baltimore emerged"
  • The engine caught fire and both the engineer and the fireman were severely injured.[1]:32 - were there passengers? Might want to clarify
  • The crowd grew increasingly restless until stones and pistols once again assaulted the soldiers guarding the area around the depot. - the stones and pistols didn't assault them, people did
  • The sentinels were called in, the soldiers assembled, and the command given to "Load, ready, aim!" at the mob. - was given
  • An unsuccessful attempt was also made to burn a B&O transportation barge at Fell's Point,[7]:739 - Grammar - meant to be a period?
  • To the west, at the Mount Clare Shops of the B&O, a 37 car train - 37-car
  • According to reports in The Sun, that the following day at 3:00 pm, - grammar
  • recounted in the follow day's newspapers - grammar
  • " The Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser report a general hope that, - meant to be past tense 'reported'?
  • I'd tweak the 'Freight resumes' heading to the noun form, so something like 'Resumption of Freight traffic'
  • It was state funded - think these should be hyphenated

Regretful Oppose- Per FA criterion 1a. While I think the article is interesting, comprehensive, and fairly well-written, the prose needs some fine-tuning before this is ready to become an FA. I found a number of grammatical errors which suggest to me that a peer review would help polish the article and give it an extra push towards being ready to be promoted. I'm sorry that it the nomination has been stalled since July, as I do think if it had gotten some feedback since then it would be ready to be promoted. It's nearly there. ceranthor 23:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Ceranthor. It went through the guild of copy editors before GA but there's been quite a bit of tweaking since then. I will attempt to address your issues and give it another thorough c/e, but I probably won't be able to get around to it until the week of the 20th. Maybe that will be enough to bring it up to speed, or maybe not. I guess we'll have to see. TimothyJosephWood 17:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, you should be proud of your work on this article. It shows, and even if it doesn't pass on this go, I would be more than happy to help you with copyediting so that it's ready next time. ceranthor 18:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor: I think I've hit most everything. The only exception is the derailed train where the fireman and engineer were injured. The presumption is more-or-less that because these two are mentioned, they were the only casualties. It was likely not a passenger train. Certainly passenger rail was widely used, but in these industrial centers, the unrest was centered around freight, since the prices for the selling and transportation of freight was the volatile bit that was exposed to the fluctuations of the depression, and caused the problems to begin with. In some cities (like Pittsburgh), there was even early resumption of mail and passenger services as an olive branch from the strikers. TimothyJosephWood 13:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my oppose. I will try to read through again tonight and provide more feedback if necessary. ceranthor 21:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the way to the from their armory, - missing a word here
  • That night, and the next day, - Might flow better as "between that night and the next day" or something similar, it's a little jarring to me without some sort of linker
  • several buildings were set on fire throughout the city. - Think this would read better as active voice: "X'ers set several buildings on fire..."
  • That summer, tensions erupted in what would become known as the Great Railroad Strike or simply the Great Strikes - internationally or just within the US? The section suggests just the US, which confuses me given the table citing data from other countries
  • In the worst case, rioting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania left 61 dead, 124 injured, and saw much of the city's center burned, including more than a thousand rail cars destroyed - this is a run-on; either split it into two sentences after 124 injured or tweak it to make it work
  • What began in Martinsburg, West Virginia, spread along the rail lines through Baltimore, and on to several major cities and transportation hubs of the time, including violence in Reading, Scranton and Shamokin, Pennsylvania; a bloodless general strike in St. Louis, Missouri; and a short lived uprising in Chicago, Illinois. - including doesn't properly link the first idea. I think it would be better to start with "Violence began... including Xinsert whatever specifically happened in PA; a bloodless general strike..."
  • That summer, tensions erupted in what would become known as the Great Railroad Strike or simply the Great Strikes - Was this in 1876 or 1877? It isn't clear from the section itself
  • In early July, - same question as above comment?
  • Various meetings of working men followed - what is a "meeting of working men"? Sounds dubiously vague to me
  • Most accepted the reduction - most workers I presume? Could you clarify?
  • and had grown to include a variety of mechanics, artisans and other laborers. - keep the serial comma consistent
  • With knowledge that groups of workers had been dispersed - think this needs to be "With the knowledge"
  • At 6:35 pm, as many workers in the city were ending their shifts, - think finishing would be better than ending here; this is a major nitpick

Almost there. ceranthor 23:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ceranthor -  Done TimothyJosephWood 14:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful. I'm going to try to get back to this tonight to double check things. ceranthor 20:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think this is ready. ceranthor 12:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I'll add comments as I go through. Please feel free to revert my copyedits if needed.

  • "That afternoon violence broke out in Martinsburg, West Virginia between workers and militia guarding a train, and continued such that the governor of West Virginia appealed to the President for help": "continued such that" is vague, and you don't say whether the governor made the appeal that same day, which seems likely since you're giving the events in chronological order. In that case, "such that" can't mean "for so long that"; does it mean "became so violent [or widespread] that"?
  • You might consider redlinking General James Herbert; my subscription to newspapers.com appears to have expired, but it seems he has an 1884 obituary in the Baltimore Sun and enough other coverage to make him notable.
  • "It was definitively decided that conditions were too dangerous": what does "definitively" add here? I think it could just be cut.
  • "At 9:15 pm another train was sent down the tracks with no one on board, to wreck itself into yet another": The crowd does this? Can we say so, or is the source vague?
  • There are several generals (Howard, Abbott, Hancock) for whom you don't provide either a first name or a link; can we rectify that in any cases?
  • "According to reports in The Sun, that the following day at 3:00 pm": something is not parsing correctly here.
  • "the fireman would be able to make daily trips": presumably "firemen"? And I don't really understand the point of the newspaper's comments, perhaps because I know little about how old trains functioned -- why was it important for the firemen, specifically, to travel?
  • "The Sun between reported between the 30th and August 1, that the strikers who still held out": clearly some editing debris here; I'd fix it myself but I'm not certain of the intended meaning. I suspect it should be: "The Sun reported that, between the 30th and August 1, the strikers who still held out".
  • Not necessary for FA, but it would be nice to figure out a link target for the 6th, 7th, and 8th regiments, even if it's a redlink.
  • The authorization of the 8th regiment is mentioned in passing as being new, but if it's in direct response to the rioting then I think that should be clearly stated. Was the 7th also a newly authorized regiment?

That's everything I can see. The article is an impressive piece of work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie  Done with the exception of the regimental links. Unfortunately, I don't have anything at my disposal that I'm aware of to definitively determine what current MD guard units (if any) these may eventually became. TimothyJosephWood 14:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The points I raised above have been addressed. I may post to MILHIST to ask about possible link targets for those regiments, but that's not relevant to the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pbsouthwood edit

Note to coordinators: Please regard this as support unless there is a significant outstanding item in this section. I leave it to your discretion what should be considered significant. (in case I am unable to respond for technical reasons at closing time)

  • For general intelligibility to a lay reader with no background in the subject, and general quality of prose: Support.

I will try to do some more source checks when I have the time. I am a bit challenged for bandwidth at present.

  • Reference 16 checks out, though it describes the Boxmakers as striking for uniform rates, not prices. I don't know whether prices would be a recognised term for pay scales in the US, but it does not look right to me.
  • Reference 33 checks out • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peter (Southwood): Regarding 16, after review, Dacus and The Sun differ somewhat in their wording, and so I have adjusted the sentence to better conform to Dacus. TimothyJosephWood 18:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checks correctly against Dacus for meaning and page number. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, I think we still need a source review. Also, as this would be the nominator's first FA, we also need a spot-check of sources for accurate usage and close paraphrasing. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for what it's worth, the most relied upon sources are all in the public domain, so it wouldn't matter if they were quoted at length verbatim as long as they were properly attributed. And I understand wanting independent confirmation, but I'm normally the a-hole who nominates other's copyright violating contributions for deletion or revdel, so there shouldn't be any issues. TimothyJosephWood 22:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Adityavagarwal edit

  • Current ref 11 is not in ISBN 13, per WP:ISBN.
  • Current ref 24 is a book, so a year will do instead of the complete date.
  • Either keep location for others too, or not at all (if you wish to keep, then current refs 9 and 12 lack locations which should be added).

That is it. Overall a wonderful article, and amazing sources! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the review Adityavagarwal. Only issue is ref 24 is currently a newspaper citation, and pretty much everything around it is too. Did you mean a different ref? Typo maybe? TimothyJosephWood 16:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it was a typo. Current ref 21 instead, but I have fixed it. All good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More source review note from Cas Liber edit

  • With references, decide whether authors are formatted "Smith, John" or "John Smith" ..I can see both used.
Done and done. TimothyJosephWood 14:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwig's copyvio clear.
  • FN #1 (p28) - used once - checks out (I can see in snippet)
  • FN #4 (pp104-06) - used six times - checks out.
  • FN #34 - used once - checks out

In summary, spot check looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

Very good article, and I see that most of the good feedback has been meted already. Some comments, all minor:

  • General:
    • Some of the images' upright ratios seem small relative to their heights. Is this on purpose?
    • Add some commas after dates and locations in order to qualify them. For instance:
      • In section July 16-19: That afternoon violence broke out in Martinsburg, West Virginia, between workers and militia guarding a train
      • In "Resumption of freight traffic": The force gathered at Camden Station at 8:30 am on Saturday, July 29, included
  • In "July 16-19":
    • "According to the piece that ran the 20th in The Sun," → According to the July 20 version of The Sun,
Done. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Attack on the depot":
    • 5th paragraph: "two hour shifts" should be hyphenated, "four hours rest" is possessive so two-hour shifts, with four hours' rest
Done. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Immediate aftermath and sporadic violence":
    • 6th para: "120-135 marines": the hyphen either should be an endash or replaced with the word "to"
Done. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 9th para: same as above with "360-400 federal troops"
Done. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Aftermath and legacy":
    • Para 2: Is "street" in "West Hoffman Street" capitalized?
Done. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Para 3: Remove "in" at the beginning of the sentence "In the following year".
Done. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all for now. epicgenius (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • epicgenius, first thanks for the review. On the first point, is there a convention here I'm missing? I've just rarely ever used anything but the default upright scaling factor. On the commas, is that a general grammatical convention that should happen each time? Maybe I just have an up-tempo cadence when I read, but I don't think I "speak" these commas in my normal "speaking". I mean, I can fix the specific instances you pointed out, but I'm not sure I can apply it as a general rule because I don't think I use it in my writing as a matter of course. TimothyJosephWood 23:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we just need to address Epicgenius's comments before we wrap this up. In the meantime, I notice that there is no alt text for the images. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice by including it. One other minor point: in the text, we refer to Stowell and Stover, but we really should be explaining to the reader who these people are and why their opinion matters. Finally, I notice that almost all the sources come from the 19th century, and there is little mention of how this event has been viewed/reviewed by historians. While I appreciate that it is possible nothing has been written, I'd just like to check that we have exhausted all modern sources on this topic. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tony1 edit

  • First sentence: "The Baltimore railroad strike was involved several days of work stoppage and violence which occurred in Baltimore, Maryland in 1877.
 Done TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second sentence: "mid 1870s"—hyphen please.
 Done TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third sentence: "... the same day that 10 percent wage reductions were scheduled to go into effect" (I'd prefer this removal at first glance; is there an added meaning?)
 Done - Probably not totally necessary. Overall it was more of a "suspense" thing. They had announced the cuts well in advance, and this was "d-day" for the rail workers. TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth sentence: "On the way from their armory, near East Fayette and North Front Streets, alongside the Jones Falls stream, the 6th Regiment was forced to stop multiple times, firing into the dense crowd that followed them and killing several civilians."—This is a highly politicised statement, and needs to be clear. "forced" means their leaders told them to stop "multiple" (there, "several" might be simpler)? Or does it mean their way was blocked by the dense crowd (surely not, since the crowd "followed them". It also leaves open the status of the second and third processes, "firing" and "killing" ... who ordered the shootings, or was it a visceral reaction by those at the bottom of the food chain? Would removing the comma after "Streets" make it flow better?
So... I've hacked this down to a pretty bare bones general description. I realize some things may seem obvious to me given that I'm thoroughly familiar. The answer to all your questions is its complicated, and after a few attempts to fix it, I think it might just be too much detail for the lead. So I'm just going with a pretty blanket statement, and I'm afraid the nitty gritty of who shot whom, when and how will have to go in the body. TJWtalk 14:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and additional militia and city police were also recruited."—"additional" and "also"? The passive voice leaves unclear who ordered the additional recruitment: Hayes?
 Done - City officials recruited the additional police, as it was their authority to do so. However, the national guard, being a state entity, was ultimately done under the authority of the governor and adjutant general, even though it was overseen by Gen. Abbot, who was under federal orders. I supposed the point here is to say that there was a response at all levels: federal, state, and local. TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The company promised minor concessions at the time, and eventually enacted some reforms later that year."—just checking: "some", here, means "just a few", doesn't it.
Yes. The central issue was pay above all else, especially since it was often intermittent work by nature. The railroad eventually adjusted the way they handled some comparatively minor logistical (maybe even cosmetic) things, but they never rescinded the wage cuts. They didn't have to. There was a surplus of labor, and they knew it, and they just successfully externalized the cost of all their security concerns to government. TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First section: do we really need pretty flag icons in the table? The country names are there (which might be more usefully piped to sections or offspring articles—it's usually a good feeling to make links more specific for readers).
Done? I... have no strong opinion about this either way. But I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean to link to specific sections in Long depression? That seems a little excessive, since many of those sections are extremely short, in cases only a single sentence. The only real material usefulness of the links is in the cases of French Third Republic and Kingdom of Italy, where they point to a "predecessor nation". The other's are a little WP:BLUE, but are just there for the sake of consistency. But again, I really don't have a strong opinion. I can just remove them outright if you think that looks cleaner. TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot of issues at the opening, not all of them to do with surface language. I don't think this is ready for promotion "tonight". Tony (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I've addressed these alright, Tony. TJWtalk 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim, what about the rest of the article? Tony (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tony. I did another total read-through. This is my first FA, and I never claimed to be the brightest. So I'm afraid if there's additional issues I'm not seeing you may have to suggest them to me, and I'll hunt them out. TJWtalk 14:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim, the lead is better now. First time? Well done: it's an important and interesting topic, and I hope it prepares you to submit more articles to FAC. But, the length of this process suggests you need to cultivate some copy-editors among the community (making friends with those you might swap editorial strengths with is a good mechanism). I don't have time to edit it throughout, but I went through quickly: yes, you've improved it overall. See if you like my 20% boost to some of the pics. Revert if you don't, but I think if they're worth including at all, the detail-rich ones were too small. (The bodies one might be a little poor in quality to be boosted in size. Over to your judgment.) I'm not voting "oppose". Tony (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the goal was to learn to write better articles, and I can say there has been some things that I probably could have anticipated if I had more carefully reviewed similar nominations, and a lot of things that I never remotely considered at all. Overall I'd say it's been a good run whether it passes or not. It's definitely made a major improvement in the article. Thanks for your time. TJWtalk 10:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think this is finally good to go, and I thank the nominator for their patience. However, I would like to point out that I left a couple of earlier points in my comment above which I see have not been addressed. They are not worth delaying promotion over, but it would be good if at least some thought was given to them. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Baltimore_railroad_strike_of_1877/archive1&oldid=1088824279"