Talk:Baltimore railroad strike of 1877

Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 29, 2018.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 5, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed
September 13, 2017	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on February 1, 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Maryland: Baltimore Low‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Baltimore Task Force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Organized Labour High‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Operations Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	September 21, 2016
Sel	week 13, 2019

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.

Archives

1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baltimore railroad strike of 1877/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 17:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood:

Nicely done. You are missing a foot note in the 6th Regiment section.
I fixed a broken sentence toward the end. see here
Let me know when you've added the citation in and I'll check the images and pass. auntieruth (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

@Auntieruth: I'm not sure what footnote you are referencing that is missing, and also do you mean in inline citation or a note? TimothyJosephWood 02:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reping @Auntieruth55:. TimothyJosephWood 02:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All is good now! :) Passed. Nicely done. auntieruth (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feature?

I think you ought to clean up some of the (minor) POV issues before putting in for FA; whether some of the dead were strikers, rioters, or in the wrong place at the wrong time is glossed over in the lead. Anmccaff (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I've at least changed "strikers" to "civilians". The distinction, as you probably well know, between who was exactly what is pretty murky, and it is probably presumptuous to label them definitively like that. You can almost certainly find one of the sources using that language, but you can probably also just as well find a source calling them just outright miscreants and the distinction be damned. TimothyJosephWood 16:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. "Three dead" or "three civilians dead" is better than "three strikers/rioters/heroes of the revolution/innocent bystanders killed", unless you know for a fact who exactly got killed, how, and doing what. I's also often unclear, even in cases where someone was unambiguously shot by the militia, whether that killed them, or their treatment, or lack of it, immediately after. Middle of an ongoing riot is a bad place to get hurt. Anmccaff (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. 150 years ago was a bad time to get hurt period. TimothyJosephWood 16:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted this had come up at the FA pages - 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 at FA review would be 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) Hchc2009 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:Camden Station in 1868.jpg

File:Great Railroad Strike plaque, Baltimore 01 (cropped).jpg

These images have been removed in the meantime pending verification. TimothyJosephWood 16:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hey Sarastro1. I did totally derp on your comments there that I missed. Not to leave things untidy, mostly when I mention the names of authors it's to point out where sources disagree, just as sources that disagree without trying to make editorial judgement about which one may be better. As to more modern authors, I agree, and that is on my list of things to do, for this and several related articles. TJW ^talk 21:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thankz

tanks you Oloy fuady (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]