Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indianapolis Streetcar Strike of 1913/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:19, 16 May 2011 [1].

Indianapolis Streetcar Strike of 1913

edit

Indianapolis Streetcar Strike of 1913 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An exciting story from Hoosier History! This fairly short article is about a strike and subsequent riot that struck Indianapolis in 1913 - it was the greatest breakdown in public order ever seen by the city. Sources on the topic are few, but from the ones available, I've been able to piece together this article which documents a very pivotal moment in the improvement of labor condition in the state of Indiana. I look forward to your reviews, and will work to quickly resolve any issues that may arise. Thanks! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on sourcing, comprehensiveness—In references: Publisher locations for all or none (for consistency). This is an underreported industrial incident. Thought of writing it up for a journal as a research note? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added the location to all sources. I hadn't thought of writing it for a journal, but I suppose I could. I spent about two weeks digging up sources on it, and there are not a whole lot. The next step would probably be to go through newspaper archives. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you did the lit review for academic significance, the newspapers, local and federal union journals it'd be article worthy. The greater academic relevance is obviously the police strike and the success of mass urban union related revolt in forcing political change in the US. Certainly reads better in achieving that success than the many famous IWW losses in the period. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • Crowds of striking workers are repeatedly refered to as mobs. I think using the word "crowd" would be more neutral.
    • It seems to me that the descriptions of violence or threats of violence by workers are both more frequent and generally more detailed than descriptions of violence by police or strikebreakers. Considering that twice as many workers died than strikebreakers or police officers, that doesn't seem right.
  • Other than that, I really enjoyed reading the article. Thanks.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced all but one of those instances of "mob" with "rioters". I was using the term to distinguish between the passive and violent phases of the strike. The reason that there is more note of the rioters violence is because they committed more, and as far the details of the different sides violent actions, I only found one source that gave good descriptions of what the police and strikebreakers were up to in that regard, so there is limited info to draw on. Most the source just say "they battled" "they fled" etc, it doesn't say "the police with in and bashed their heads with clubs", although that is most likely what happened. Thanks for the comments! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

    • Image problem - I'm opposing because of the infobox image; the image's source says the name of the company/building is Union Traction which is different than your article, and Shorpy.com isn't a credible source, and they seem to be selling that photo so I have no idea what is correct or if the image is in copyright. I think you need to find the actual image, or pick a different image for the infobox which is credible.
      • I've swapped it for another image. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • [this] would be a better picture (the IHS has a bunch more).
        • All the IHC images I could find are copyrighted by the IHC, they can't really be used unless we can find they were published before 1923. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no links/redlinks for the name of the railway; Indianapolis Traction and Terminal Company doesn't exist and its not in the defunct section of List of Indiana railroads. Are you sure that's the right name?
      • The traction company was not a railroad, it was a streetcar system. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure the right name is Union Traction Company of Indiana. Not a good sign for 1c.
        • No, it is definitely the correct name as stated in all the sources. The Union Traction Company of Indiana was based in Anderson, Indiana in 1913, not Indianapolis, and was a competitor to the Indianapolis company. Do you have a source to show the name of the company was something else at the time of the strike? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The shutdown also stopped most of Indiana's inter-city light rail transportation... - Don't you mean Indiana's interurban railways...; light rail is a modern name for these types of railways. Kirk (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Light rail and interurban are interchangeable in that sense, they are the same thing-short gauge rail lines intended for passenger transportation and small cars. These are not railroads with trains, they are streetcars. They are single cars traveling down a track using electric for propulsion. Indiana had an extensive system of these type cars in from 1890-1940. Most went bankrupt and sold their property to railroads in the 1960s who converted the tracks to large gauge and now use the lines for freight. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The external link is for a blog with no sources...Kirk (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a blog, but I found the information to be interesting. The author is a railroad historian, so it is at least partially reverent. I will remove it though. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Found quite a few grammar glitches and style points, which are detailed below. I wasn't expecting this many issues in a moderate-sized article, but the good news is that they should be simple to fix.

  • Why is State capitalized in "transportation hub of the U.S. State of Indiana."?
    • "State" is part of the proper noun in that context? State of Indiana, not "state of Indiana". —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't "shutdown" supposed to be two words? (in "The strike effectively shutdown mass transit in the city...")
  • Background: "Beginning with the rapid industrial growth that began in Indiana during the gas boom of the late 19th-Century". Don't think "Century" needs capitalization, either. This over-capitalization of words that don't require it is something to check for in the rest of the article.
  • Something appears missing from "and he and group of men traveled to Indianapolis." Should likely be "a group of men", or similar.
  • "The workers' committee submitted a list of grievances to the company and Stewart to begin negotiations." Is a word missing before Stewart's name or am I reading this the wrong way?
    • No, I have reworded though to be more clear. "To begin negotiations, the workers' committee submitted a list of grievances to the company and Stewart." —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "the" from "was sent to the Robert L. Todd"?
  • From a photo caption: "the of hub the state and city's electric light rail system". Switch needed for "of" and "hub".
  • November 2: Would be useful to add "to" in "A riot began as the strikebreakers attempted restore transit service."
  • November 5: Indiana National Guard doesn't need two links here. Also, there are links for Indiana Statehouse here and in the next section; the latter one could stand to be dropped.
  • Aftermath: "and on November 12 finished work on a binding agreement whereby all employees agreed continue work and maintain all their former seniority". Seems like it's missing "to" before "continue work".
  • "were acts the banned the sale of narcotic drugs for the first time". First "the" → "that"?
  • Missing "of" in "on most the grievances."
  • Publisher of reference 10 (New York Times) should be italicized as a printed publication. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is an interesting article which I think has been brought to FAC prematurely. The very recent GA review made no comments on the article's content, and did not provide any basis for a critical assessment of whether the article meets the FA criteria. In my view a lot more work is necessary before those criteria can be met. There are a few issues relating to images, but my chief concern is prose.

  • Images
    • The present infobox picture lacks confirmation of publication prior to 1923. Its copyright status cannot be determined from the information provided. Copyright on the suggested alternative image is claimed by the Indiana Historical Association. Your safest course would be to promote File:Indianapolis Traction and Terminal Company's Terminal Complex.jpg to your infobox image, because a pre-1923 publication date has been established here.
      • As you are the second to mention this, I will just remove it. I know it has to be pre-1923 because the building was demolished in 1919 and replaced though. I like it because the quality is much better than anything else I can find. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re File:Crowd swarms streetcar in 1913 Indianapolis Streetcar Stirke.jpg, what is the date of the Electric Railway Journal from which the picture is taken?
  • First sentence:
    • What is the source for describing the police's inaction as a "mutiny"? Was it thus described at the time? If so, that source should be cited.
      • The Encyclopedia of Indianapolis calls it that, and that source is given later in the article when talking about it. I also found a book, which I didn't use because it was redundant, on the Indianapolis Police Department, which also calls it a mutiny. I could include that too. It was the refusal to obey orders that was a mutiny. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 02:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the reason for bolding "Indianapolis Police Mutiny" and "1913 Indianapolis Riots", bearing in mind the title of he article?
      • Those are two titles that redirect to this article, and they are both separate encyclopedia entries in the Encyclopedia of Indianapolis. Since the three events are so intertwined, it seemed most logical to me to put them all in one article here. However, they appear to be equally valid title for the event. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is tautologous to say that The Indianapolis Streetcar Strike of 1913 [and subsequent events] "began as a workers strike..."
    • The opening sentence is too long and convoluted, and really needs recasting as two statements.
  • Second sentence:
    • Having included the subsequent events in the first sentence, the second sentence should not start "The subsequent series of events..."
    • The description of these events as "the greatest breakdown in public order ever seen in Indianapolis" is based on an individual's statement, and should not be presented here as an established fact.
      • It is true though, there has been no other riot or disaster in the city's history. I am well versed in the history of the region, there is nothing comparable. I've tweaked it a bit though. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other lead prose issues
    • "Shut down" as a verb requires two words
    • "Ralston addressed the crowd to promise concessions if the workers would return to work" → "Ralston addressed the crowd, promising concessions...." etc
      • I get such back and forth on things like this. One reviewer will say not to "ing" other will say to do so. Tony's copy edit rules says to avoid "ing" before a noun. Did the concessions make promises?
    • The term "impassioned" is non-neutral unless part of a quote. And, I think, "ending" rather than "breaking" the strike; breaking a strike is a violent process.

With this number of issues arising in the lead, the likelihood is that prose problems will persist throughout the article. I have doubts as to whether all the problems can be resolved within the timeframe of this FAC, but you never know. By all means ping me when you think that all the issues have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address each of your specific comments. Thanks for the review! I do agree, I hate rubber stamp GAs when a set of critical eyes would have went a long way to improving an article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (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/Indianapolis_Streetcar_Strike_of_1913/archive1&oldid=1089084614"