Talk:1916–1917 northern Minnesota lumber strike

1916–1917 northern Minnesota lumber 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.
Review: August 22, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A fact from 1916–1917 northern Minnesota lumber strike appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 October 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that during the 1916–1917 northern Minnesota lumber strike, multiple cities in Minnesota banned members of the Industrial Workers of the World from their municipalities?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1916–1917 northern Minnesota lumber strike.

Wikipedia

Organized Labour Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

passed Mujinga (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:1916–1917 northern Minnesota lumber strike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 13:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JJonahJackalope, I'll take this article for review as part of the August 2023 GAN Backlog Drive.

Thanks for nominating this article, I don't know as much about the Wobblies as I feel I should do and I thought somehow they were mainly an urban thing so it was fascinating to read about lumberjacks, miners and mill workers mobilising. @JJonahJackalope: I've left comments below and will put the article on hold for a week in order for you to make answers - if you need longer that's not a problem as long as we keep in communication about it. In fact, I'll probably be away most of next week although my plans haven't firmed up yet Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2023 (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

copyvio check

earwig check throws up mainly names but there's a bit of close paraphrasing with the Witek source - "the union claimed a partial victory", "up to 1,000 of the mill's 1,200 workers went on strike" vs "an estimated 1000 of the 1200 workers went on strike", "a "flying squad" of about a dozen men to travel to the logging camps throughout the area to spread the word of the strike to the AWO job delegates" versus " “Flying squads” were organized to spread word of the strike to all the logging camps in the region", "an end to union suppression" - I think this can be resolved quite easily by rephrasing.
- Rephrased several sentences.

spotchecks & referencing

on this version

spotcheck3: Despite the strike ending without a labor contract in place between the miners and the mining companies on the range, many of the companies began instituting changes to address the causes of the strike, such as increased pay and an eight-hour workday.[3] -ok

spotcheck6: and in late 1916, a significant number of lumberjacks had been involved in the miners' strike and were subsequently blacklisted by those companies.[6] - pdf link doesn't work, jstor link still valid - ok

spotcheck12: In 1914, two state investigators stated in a report after visiting a camp, "Both of us regretted that we did not have the authority to order all the men out of the camp and burn the place to the ground".[12] - ok

spotcheck19: In one case, two of the men was given a $100 fine or 60 days of hard labor for calling strikebreakers "scabs".[19] - bit off - source says "One Wobbly, Leo Ahlgren, was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 or to serve 90 days on the work farm for "intimidating" an unidentified complainant with the statement, "You better not go to work." Two others were fined $100 or given 60 days for taking part "in a disturbance of the public peace by speaking . . . the following words (sic), to wit, 'Scab'.""
- Edited this statement to more accurately reflect the charge.

spotcheck1: While the lumberjacks demanded a $40 per month minimum wage, the companies instead instituted a $45 minimum monthly wage.[1]

images

images are appropriately licensed and relevant
would be great if you could add alt descriptions per MOS:ACCIM
some images have fixed sizes eg "309x309px" - a better default would be to use "thumb", but if you want to keep a pic a certain size that's also fine

article status

article is broad, neutral and focused. it is stable. references are well laid out and from reliable sources.

prose

"and at its peak it involved about several thousand miners," - "about" seems redundant
- Removed "about".
" and many worked only 6 days per week" - what's "only" doing here? as in it makes me not sure what the sentence is trying to say
- Previously, it was stated that many of the Minnesota workers worked 7-day weeks, so the "only" was used to highlight the difference between the two work-weeks. I have removed it, though, since it seems a bit superfluous.
"Additionally, Sheriff Meining deputized Rogers and placed him in charge of the deputized group.[19]" - reads a bit funny becuase of 2xdeputized
- Rephrased to make it sound better.
"several hundred strikers began to picket outside that main gates to the Virginia and Rainy Lake Lumber Company plant" - I think "that" is a typo
- Yeah, my bad, changed it to "the".
"over 1,000 came from 6 camps operated by the Virginia and Rainy Lake Lumber Company, while another thousand came from 9 camps " - to be consistent, "thousand" should be 1,000
- Done.
" the industry in central Minnesota was relatively unfazed by the strike" - unfazed seems a strange word choice?
- Changed to "untroubled".
"In one case, two of the men was given a $100 fine or 60 days of hard labor for calling strikebreakers "scabs" " - this has got a bit garbled per mention above
- Edited it as noted above.
note1 needs a citation
- Added references to Note 1.
lead - good job

Mujinga, I wanted to reach out to let you know that I have made some edits to the article to address some of the points you made in your review. Sorry for the late reply, but thanks again for initiating this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great will take a look in couple of days, cheers Mujinga (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still suggest the image edits but that's not a pass/fail issue. Congrats on the good article and keep 'em coming! Mujinga (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

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 Vaticidalprophet talk 09:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that during the 1916–1917 northern Minnesota lumber strike, multiple cities in Minnesota banned members of the Industrial Workers of the World from their municipalities? Source: Haynes 1971, pp. 172-173 and Witek 2016
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lee Dai Sor

Improved to Good Article status by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 14:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/1916–1917 northern Minnesota lumber strike; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

GA-quality, no plagiarism; hook present in article, sourced, interesting, validated by reference; QPQ done. Good to go. Dahn (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]