Talk:Coal Strike of 1902

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Coal Strike of 1902 is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

Coal Strike of 1902 is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: 10 September 2006

[edit] Less is more

Rather than justify all of the cuts I made, anyone who thinks that the old, largely unwikified article was a better encyclopedia article can restore it. I suggest, however, that you restore it a sentence or a paragraph at a time, just as I cut a sentence or a paragraph here and there. 24.126.41.116 10:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) aka User:Italo Svevo

[edit] Lead section

The lead needs to longer and a more comprehensive summary of the entire article. See WP:LEAD. A good way to start in that direction would be to "chop up" the sentence, which is a run-on -- hardly the "compelling prose" that is required of a GA. -Fsotrain₀₉ 14:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

First, I would like to congratulate the editors involved on choosing a good topic and getting off to an excellent start. While I failed this article, I think it can be improved over time with a little effort to meet the criteria.

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 10, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The only issue I have with the writing is the issue mentioned in the section above this review. The introduction should be two paragraphs that summarize the article. The run-on sentence structure in the introduction is also problematic.

2. Factually accurate?: The largest problem with this article is the wholesale lack of in-line citations. This is admittedly my first review, but I checked other candidates with reviews and see no chance for this article to make the status without at least one appropriate in-line citation per section. It would be preferable to have one in-line citation per paragraph.

3. Broad in coverage?: I am not aware of any major details that are missing in this article. It does an excellent job of setting out the context of the strike in light of prior strikes.

4. Neutral point of view?: The article does a good job with this matter. I do not get a feeling of bias, which is commendable because this article would definitely lend itself to advocacy.

5. Article stability? There are no issues here.

6. Images?: The use of appropriate images is wonderful.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Erechtheus 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)