Talk:National Federation of Women Workers/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 20:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I might take up to seven days to complete the review depending on content; parking the empty table below for the review. Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 20:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
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 Relative depth - The lead is incomplete as it does not really indicate the significance of the NFWW. I would suggest an extra two or three sentences covering the fact that the NFWW was instrumental in winning the first minimum wage for women workers in the UK (the Cradley Heath Chain Makers) and was the first union to break down the barriers of women's trade unionism. Also the NFWW did not merge into the GMB, but rather merged into the NUGW, which was a forerunner to the GMB. This should be corrected - a note could be added to indicate the GMB relationship.  Done MOS - Layout Short description added. The main content section I would suggest be framed following Cathy Hunt's delineation in "The National Federation of Women Workers, 1906-1921". Four sections as follows: Beginnings (better than establishment since beginnings covers a wider time frame) Growth of the NFWW World War One Amalgamation with the NUGW  Done MOS - Words to watch Frequent use of "it"; (counted 10) copy editing needed. Eg instead of this: "The NFWW had seventeen branches at the end of its first year and around 2,000 members,[5] this grew to an estimated peak of around 40,000 in 1914" perhaps this: "From the end of 1907, the NFWW grew from 17 branches and 2,000 members to an estimated peak of around 40,000 in 1914."  Three examples remaining, please revise MOS - Fiction N/A MOS - Embedded Lists N/A
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. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	"A strike fund raised by the union raised around £4,000 (approx. £450,000 in 2018 value) to support the strikers.[3] 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.[6]" 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?  Done
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research detected.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or 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: in the section that covers the period of World War 1: this is basically a description of industrial actions that involved NFWW - however, what is important during this period is why were the NFWW successful. Here the context of World War 1 becomes very important - employers and government were far more sensitive due to labour shortages and the ongoing war. This section has not been changed substantially, although the new sentences added address the comment. However, what follows the new text is still a description of a series of disputes which is unconnected to the added text. A substructure is needed for this section, with a small introduction, discussion of the disputes and a conclusion covering the end of the war. the NFWW represents a significant shift in the activities of those in the suffrage movement - that is a shift from middle and upper class philanthropic ideologies towards working class/socialist ideology.  Not done Corruganza box makers strike of 1908 should be referenced - as far as I can see this is the first successful industrial action involving the NFWW  The growth section only covers the chain makers strike, I've moved the Corrunganza strike material here, adding the Bermondsey strike (1911) will help. Reasons for and consequences of the amalgamation with the NUGW. Done
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"The Workers' Institute (Known locally as the 'Stute') was relocated to the Black Country Living Museum. In 2004, the iconic building was threatened by demolition due to the construction of a new road bypass. Sandwell MBC approached the BCLM and with Members of the community including the Midlands TUC and members of trade unions, a campaign was launched to save it. Supporters were invited to sponsor a brick and in 2006 the Heritage Lottery Fund awarded the museum a £1.5M grant to take the building apart brick by brick and rebuild it at the Museum in Dudley. Until the campaign to save the Workers' Institute, the story of the Women Chainmakers' Strike of 1910 had largely been forgotten. 2005 saw the first Women Chanmakers' Festival in association with the Midlands TUC and many unions, hosted at the museum, near to the relocated building. Now, the annual Women Chainmakers' Festival, which is still organised by Midlands TUC, is held in Cradley Heath, most recently at Mary Macarthur Memorial Gardens, on the site of the original strike meeting ground (next to the former site of the Workers' Institute)" This text appears from the Cradley Heath Workers' Institute article and is not relevant to this article; it should be removed.  Done Badge This section is too detailed. Would suggest moving the image in the infobox to be an image in the text with the material from the badge section edited to form the caption.  further editing needed with the caption, please make shorter
	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 non-free 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.	Failed, requested changes incomplete after two months, review closed.

Review now completed, I think the comments I have posed can be relatively easily addressed and if so, the article can reach GA.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@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)

A small piece of advice with citations: with this edit I removed the double linking to the OCLC, where possible the URL link should point to the actual text, not a catalogue reference.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Status query

Goldsztajn, Franko2nd, where does this nomination stand? It's been about eight weeks since the last post to this page, and over a month since Franko2nd's most recent edits to the article. It would be great to get this moving again. Thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: From what I can see Franko2nd has made some changes, but there are still outstanding issues. If we don't hear anything by the end of Sunday 5 April, I'll close as not passing. Thanks for doing the follow up, regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Closing

Franko2nd unfortunately, I will have to close this as incomplete. It's an article worthy of being a good article. If I find time I will try to do some more work so it can be renominated and reviewed by someone else. --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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.