Wikipedia:Peer review/Pittston Coal strike/archive1

Pittston Coal strike

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am working on this as a class project. I am not too familiar with minning and would like some feedback. I am also very new to wikipedia and do not know how to write a good article under its standards. If anyone could help fix grammer, typos, and even add information it would help alot. I really want to do well on this project and would like any type of review as long as it helps me to improve the article.

Thanks, Megzie113 (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all welcome to Wikipedia (WP for short) and thank you for your efforts with this article. You have indicated that you are new to WP and so as I review the article I will provide suggestions and sprinkle in tips from the Manual of Style, which is the guideline for all articles within WP. If my review is too rudimentary please let me know, I want it to be helpful rather than covering stuff you may already know. I won't make a lot of prose comments as I want to focus more on explaining WP guidelines rather than discussing grammatical issues.

Lead

• See WP:LEAD for thoughts on what is supposed to be in a good lead. Make sure the information in the lead covers all the subjects in the body of the article. Conversely make sure that the lead doesn't bring up items not found in the body of the text. A good rule is that a reader should be able to get a skeletal idea of the subject simply from the lead. The rest of the text is filling in the details.
• Your lead seems ok, I haven't read the entire article so I don't know if it covers everything within the article but it appears to conform with the guidelines. I would recommend an image in the Infobox if you can find one.

The Pittston Strike of 1989

• I'm not really sure of the need for this section. It seems to be a very brief summary of the reasons for the strike and the strike itself. Since this is covered in the lead and the body of the article I don't really think it is needed. It seems duplicative.
• The image in this section is nice though a bit dated. But still it seems topical.

Events leading to the strike

• I did some word-smithing in this section, nothing major just trying to use some better or more topical words. Please feel free to revert or change if you feel I'm off base.
• Otherwise I think this section is pretty good.

UMWA declares strike

• The first paragraph ends with the end of the strike but then the rest of the section discusses the particulars of the strike. I recommend removing this final sentence in the first paragraph about how the strike ended. It's duplicated at the end of the section anyway.
• Consider combining this section with the Stike tactics section. I think that the subjects are intertwined.

Strike tactics

• Check out the link to wildcat. It is to the animal. I'm guessing the reference to a wildcat striker is to a rogue, rebellious striker who wants to take matters into his/her own hands. Is that right? If so consider using a different term or at least explaining the term here. You want to avoid jargon that readers would not be familiar with.
• I delinked equipment in this section as the term is to vague to be linked and is a common term in English. See WP:LINK for thoughts on linking.
• This sentence has been stated a couple times already, "The strike lasted until a settlement was finally agreed upon in February 1990." I don't think it needs to be said again in this section.
• The template is there because someone determined that a statement was made that is not supported by any of the in-line citations immediately following it. So it will be important to reference the sentence that has the tag on it. More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• "Mass sit down strikes and large groups of people picketing outside of the Pittston coal mines." This is a fragment sentence, consider combining with the previous sentence.
• The Civil disobedience sub-section is a bit sparse, can it be expanded or combined with the Violent actions sub-section?
• There is another template in the Moss 3 sub-section, there is also direction about this specific template placed in hidden text after the template. Click on the "edit" link for this sub-section and you'll see what is needed to fulfill the needs of a citation.
• I also added a template at the end of this sub-section. A common error many editors (including myself) have made is something called weasel wording. Editors will start sentences with "Experts claim that...", or "Many people believe...", or in this case, "People outside Moss 3 feel that..." and follow it with information that is not supported by outside references. They claim support because "People feel that way." This is very common and I would recommend taking a look at this sentence and rewording it to avoid weasel words.
• There's another reference to when the strike ended in the Moss 3 sub-section, I think it's a bit redundant to keep saying it.

Women's involvement

• "A majority of the support that the union members received was from women." Do you have a cite for this fact? Make sure it's referenced.
• List the two pivotal women's groups in the introductory section.
• It's usually not a good idea to drop in-line citations in the middle of a sentence. It's ok to put it at the end of the sentence or at least at the end of a comma. See WP:CITE for all things about in-line citations.
• I've seen a few misplaced hard spaces. See WP:NBSP for more info on hard spaces. Usually they come between numbers and a unit of measurement like years, meters, or millions. I removed a few but you might want to check throughout the article.

Aftermath

• I want to raise another issue with this sentence:

"Though the physical aspects of the area have changed since the strike has ended, what has not changed is the feeling that the miners of Pittston accomplished a win for their own benefits as well as benefits for the UMWA."

WP:NPOV is a requirement that all articles be neutral, that they present both sides without bias towards one point of view. I feel that the overall tone of the article is pro-miner. There is little about the financial pressures that the company was under. Some in the lead up to the strike but most of the article is centered on the miners. This sentence is evidence of opinion rather than verifiable fact. Try to keep the focus of the article on facts.

• The case is still undecided 16 years after the fact? That seems like an awful long time.

References

• There are a great many different formats for referencing. The most important thing is that you remain consistent. I see some book refs that have page numbers and others that don't. This should be remedied. Other than that your refs look pretty good. WP:CITE also has formats for referencing.
• WP:VERIFY covers references that are credible and references that aren't. I see the extensive use of an article by the United Mine Workers' Journal "A Strike like No Other Strike: Pittston Strike Holds Lessons for Today". While the source is probably valid and credible, it is also likely to be biased towards the miners. I don't think the article relies to heavily on the source but it's just something to be aware of.

Overall

• I think you've done great work here, you have a good working knowledge of WP style, which can be very complex and confusing. I note that the article is at WP:GAC, you may want to put the article up against the Good Article criteria to make sure it meets the GA standards. You're off to a great start and my suggestions are mainly going to help tweak the article and hopefully make it better. Best of luck to you. If you have any questions or concerns about this review please give me a poke on my talk page and I'll happily interact with you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)