Talk:National Federation of Women Workers/GA1
|1. Well written:|
|1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.||All suitable, minor tweaking|
|1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.||
MOS - Lead
MOS - Layout
MOS - Words to watch
MOS - Fiction
MOS - Embedded Lists
|2. Verifiable with no original research:|
|2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.||There is somewhat of a lack of professional historical material used to support the article. There are available a number of peer-reviewed texts (included now on the talk page) which could be suitably used. A number of blog sites are referenced, ideally these should be removed and replaced. Done|
|2b. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.||"A strike fund raised by the union raised around £4,000 (approx. £450,000 in 2018 value) to support the strikers. Part of the success of the chainmakers' strike fundraising was due to the ability of the NFWW and Mary Macarthur to attract wide support amongst newspapers, including surprisingly at the time in The Times, which had historically opposed strike action. Collections were made in local communities across the United Kingdom and Ireland from outside churches, football grounds, factories and Labour Party meetings. A Pathé news film of the chainmakers strike was produced and shown in picture theatres across the country."
Reference needed for claim that The Times “historically opposed strike action.”
The sentence on the Pathé news film implies that the film was made to support fundraising… rather would it not be that the Pathé news film drew broader attention to the struggle?
|2c. it contains no original research.||No original research detected.|
|2d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.||Earwig suggests 31.5%, but this is because of a quote from a single source|
|3. Broad in its coverage:|
|3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.||In general yes, however some points which the article should convey:
|3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).||
|4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.||Overall, a sympathetic portrayal of the NFWW, however this accords with the sources.|
|5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.||No content disputes or edit warring.|
|6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:|
|6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.||All images are now correct (licensing and attributions of the chainmakers strike photo were incorrect on commons, but have fixed this).|
|6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.||All suitable|
|7. Overall assessment.||On hold pending response from nominator|
Update Since Review
1B - Lead has been reviewed summarising significance of organization and factual corrections as highlighted - MOS Lead - Layout has been changed to reflect comments in review on MOS layout - It copy editing undertaken as per review on MOS words to watch
2A - Blog sites removed and replaced with better sources. A number of new sources have been added on back of suggestions in talk page to replace these and improve other areas of article. New content from sources has also been added.
2B - Reference to Times newspaper removed. Pathe film sentence reviewed to make clarity better as per review suggestion.
3A - All four comments in reveiw acted upon including the addition of new material on 1908 strike and amalgamation.
3B - Removed irrelevant section and removed the section on the badge with inclusion of caption instead. New main image added to infobox.
- @Franko2nd: Hi! thanks for the quick response. Give me 24 hours to respond please. Regards --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Franko2nd: Hi! I've added comments in response to your changes in the review above. I've also done some copy editing to the article where I can. If you can address these points I think we will be very close.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)