Talk:1913 Studebaker strike

1913 Studebaker 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 21, 2021	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 6, 2021.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1913 Studebaker strike is regarded as the first major labor strike in the automotive industry?

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 17, 2023.

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.

Michigan: Detroit Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan 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.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Detroit task force.

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles 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.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the 1913 Studebaker strike, organized by the Industrial Workers of the World, is regarded as the first major labor strike in the automotive industry? Smith 2001 p. 160, Goldstein 2001 p. 90, Hermann 2014 p. 63

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Anyanwu (sculpture)

Created by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 18:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, copyvio "unlikely", its well-sourced and well annotated. Plus its really interesting. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modified ALT0 to T:DYK/P3

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1913 Studebaker strike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 19:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking a look at this! — Ghost River 19:39, 21 October 2021 (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

Infobox and lede

"manufacturing plant. Thus the police banned large marches and parades." → "manufacturing plant and a subsequent city ban on large marches and parades."
- Done.
"began hiring replacement workers - strikebreakers" → "began hiring strikebreakers"
- Done.

Background

"were not long-lasting." → "were short-lived"
- Done.
"responding to requests from autoworkers in the city" → "in response to seveal requests" (decrease repetition of "autoworkers in the city")
- Done, with grammatical fix to "several".
Subject/verb agreement with the quote: the city was "among", but is only one "metropolis"
- Fixed.
"~~IWW~~ organizers began focusing their efforts"
- Done.
"with the organizers initially pushing for" → "who initially pushed for"
- Done.
The last sentence has a semicolon where there should be a period
- Fixed.

Course of the strike

"(AFL,)" → "(AFL),"
- Fixed.
"craft union oriented" → "craft union-oriented"
- Fixed.
Unpaired right parenthetical after "at odds with the IWW"
- Fixed.
Commas around "presided over by Robbins"
- Done.

Aftermath

"organized labor at Detroit" → "organized labor in Detroit"
- Done.

References

Good

General comments

Both photos are in the public domain and are relevant to the article
I'd recommend moving the first one up a paragraph to avoid disrupting the header line, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION
- Done.
No stability concerns in the revision history
Copyvio score looks great at 10.7%

Putting on hold now to allow nominator to address comments. Feel free to ping me with any questions. — Ghost River 19:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GhostRiver, just pinging to let you know that I made some edits to the article that address your comments. Thank you for starting this review, and if there are any further questions, comments, or concerns about the article, please reach out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made one additional edit myself; otherwise, looks good to pass! — Ghost River 21:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]