This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Reviewer:DCI2026 (talk·contribs) 19:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I will begin this review as soon as possible, and hope to get my comments posted in a like fashion. dci | TALK 19:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is excellent; I took the liberty of changing "lung power" to oratory. dci | TALK 00:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest taking a little bit off of the lead where you refer to his accomplishments, and add more on his falling out with the union movement and on his later, more dubious and desperate "exploits". dci | TALK 00:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything in particular you think needs removing/adding? Not sure what to change here. BigDom (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly any issues to speak of in the "early life" section. I would suggest extrapolating a bit on problems with cotton mill conditions, and the particular concerns of striking workers. dci | TALK 00:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Think this should be OK now, added a bit about factory conditions, etc. BigDom (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is "struck" the correct term for "went on strike"? I've only seen the latter used. dci | TALK 00:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary seems to think it's correct, I think it should be fine. BigDom (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A little more information or context on Ernest Jones' labor parliament of 1854 would be helpful. dci | TALK 00:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the trickiest point! It just mentions it in the ODNB bio, but I'm not sure what it means by "parliament", they certainly weren't involved in running the country or anything. I'll come back to you on this one. BigDom (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any info on why Grimshaw and company were not able to find a suitable union role after their strike defeat? dci | TALK 00:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they lost, I suppose. I'll see if any of the books elaborate on it any further. BigDom (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was he successful in obtaining funds to emigrate? You mention that, then move to his life in the northern US. Where exactly did he live in the US, for how long, and what did he do there? dci | TALK 00:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "attempted to raise funds" to "raised funds" to make it clearer. I don't think very much at all is known about his time in America, as far as I can see it's not in any of the books. He was quite a low-profile character by the time he emigrated so there's not as many details about this part of his life, but I'll see what I can find. BigDom (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Were they treated with hostility by crowds of uninvolved people who were irritated with them or by disenchanted cotton weavers? dci | TALK 00:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified this. BigDom (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How did he get pro-Confederacy tendencies in the North? Was he upset with something he observed there? Note that addressing this point is not necessary to getting the article passed, it's just a bit odd. dci | TALK 00:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing a little something about this in one of the books; I'll have another look. I think it was something to do with slaves and cotton prices. BigDom (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest splitting the first sentence of this paragraph into two parts, especially if you are able to respond to the above point. dci | TALK 00:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, done anyway even if I don't find anything for the point above. BigDom (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly was he a political adventurer, and how was he able to be an anti-union advocate if he was able to sell his services to the unions? dci | TALK 00:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The unions were for the mill workers, Grimshaw sold his services to the mill owners like it says in the article. Should I add a sentence to make it clear that the unions for only for the workers? BigDom (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose not; this should be apparent to most readers. dci | TALK 01:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I've addressed some of the points now, and will try to get round to the others tomorrow. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a couple more replies:
Included a sentence about why there was no further role for him in the unions.
Added a couple of sentences of info about Ernest Jones' labour parliament.
Couldn't find anything more about his location in America, he was just too low profile then.
Found a source for his pro-Confederacy leanings, so I've added a bit about that.
Just waiting to see what to change in the lead now. Are the changes I've made OK? BigDom (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks excellent; I see no further issues in the body of the article. As for the lead: I think right now it focuses a bit heavily on his achievements, given the amount of information on his later falling out with the unions. I no longer think it's necessary to trim anything, but, as the man ended his days as a "notorious scoundrel" selling his services to both sides, there should be more information on that in the third paragraph. Other than that, the article is pretty much good to go. Thanks for your quick and quality revisions. dci | TALK 01:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest trimming or splitting the first sentence of the third paragraph, it's a bit of a run-on. dci | TALK 01:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've had a bash at the lead, see what you think. BigDom (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All is in order; this article is passed. I see no need for a full checklist, given that all criteria on said list have been met; if you want one, I will post it when I add this to the GA list and close the review. dci | TALK 03:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you say it passes the criteria, that's good enough for me. BigDom (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
