Talk:1935 Copperbelt strike/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Brigade Piron (talk · contribs) 09:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer's comments

Hello Ssriram mt, I'm proposing to review this article unless you have any objection.

Firstly, well done on the expansion of this article. It's certainly looking much better than it did just a few weeks ago! I'll try to keep my comments as constructive as possible and please let me know where you disagree/need clarification.

So to the comments:

My biggest reserve about this article is the structure. At the moment, the "Background" and "1935 strike" sections are a bit over the place and, for GA, more structure is needed. The necessary information is there, however, so it shouldn't be too much work to fix it.

As a rule, I'd expect approximately this kind of order:

Background:
- Brief history of colonialism in Zambia/Northern Rhodesia to 1935 (very basic, possibly with a map showing where it is)
- Background to the copperbelt and the history of mining in the region - I think you need to clarify that there were Copper and coal mines there since you talk about Wankie.

Done

I then suggest you keep the "1935 strike" heading and create two sub-headings inside it:

Development of the strike" (or similar title)
- All the information about the worker's conditions and the Great Depression would go here

Done

"The strike"
- You'd then include the information about the actual strike here. I'm afraid you'd probably need more material on this.

Agreed - will include.

Done

I'd also suggest dividing the "Aftermath" section (which is better) into two parts, one dealing with the literal aftermath (enquiry/reforms etc.) and one with the historical significance (importance in the nationalist movement) etc.

Done - will include more details.

I'm also not convinced that the infobox is helping the reader to understand the strike any better. In particular, I think the Template:Infobox Military Conflict is inappropriate. If you have to have an infobox, I suggest that Template:Infobox event is more suited.

Done - will include more details.

Done

Let me know your thoughts about these first suggestions! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking up the review. I will try to incorporate all the review comments over the weekend.Ssriram mt (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed the first round - please let me know for review comments.Ssriram mt (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's certainly a big improvement but I'm afraid I think it needs to go further. If you look at the material in the "History" and "Development of the Strike" section, you'll see there's big overlap with the chronology going backwards and forwards in time which makes it quite difficult to follow the narrative. The sections themselves are fine but I suggest that you re-group the material within them into a slightly more logical order:

The extension of British colonial rule in Central Africa
The discovery of mineral deposits and the emergence of mining
Start of black labour migration

In my opinion, all these three areas should be in the "History" section (I suggest renaming this "Background" to avoid confusion). —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have rearranged the contents to maintain chronology within each section - migration has also been adjusted. Please see if it looks ok.Ssriram mt (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I think the organisational re-organisation has been helpful. I think the prose is the next thing to work on. Take just one sentence for example: "The effects of Great Depression and the fall of Copper prices in 1931 in Europe were felt in Copperbelt Province." It could be cut into two or re-phrased to make its meaning clearer. Something like: "The Great Depression (1929-35) led to a fall in the price of copper in Europe. This was extremely damaging to the economy of the Copperbelt." Remember we're trying to get a point across to the reader and we should take care that everyone will be able to follow the prose.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - let me update it by tomm.Ssriram mt (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for responding a bit late - I have copy-edited.Ssriram mt (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brigade Piron - can you please let me know for changes after the updates. Thanks a lot.Ssriram mt (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I still have some reservations about the article. In particular, the "Development of the strike" needs more work and, especially, citations. Indeed I think some more factual material might be helpful in both of the two sub-sections of "1935 strike". I don't see the relevance of the material about the Hut Tax, for example.

I think part of the problem is that there's no coherent narrative. The "Development of the Strike" should be re-organised to deal with four (separate) points which can follow on from one another:

Migration of black workers to the mines
White migration to the mines
Racial discrimination/working conditions
The effects of the Great Depression & the tax increase.

As for the "The strike" section, I'm sure you can clean it up so to ensure that the reader has a clear idea what strike broke out when, what happened etc.—Brigade Piron (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be worth putting in a request for help at the Guild of Copyeditors? —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated in GOCE, will work on improving it in the meanwhile.Ssriram mt (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brigade Piron - The GOCE is complete and the missing sequence on background and strike is also addressed with additional details.Ssriram mt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 10 December 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we're nearly there! The Copy Edit has been a big step forwards. I have a couple of factual worries though, most notably over the claim that the "unrest gave missionaries a chance to advance the "Watchtower movement", joining the mining companies to provide a Christian education and create a disciplined workforce" (in lead and body of article). Now, I suggest you check your source here - missionaries (i.e. European priests) were always worried about Millenarianism (even of a Christian nature) as a corruption of Christian dogma. The unrest might have helped to spread the Watchtower or it might have helped Missionaries gain power in an attempt to stop it - but the current phrase is not right. Can you check your source? —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - i will update in a day or two (caught in a storm here, power and internet are intermittent).Ssriram mt (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brigade Piron - Apologies for the delay, was a bit held up in personal commitments. Please have a look at the latest.Ssriram mt (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Yes, I'm happy to pass this article now. For the record, though, I think it would need quite a bit more work (especially on the source front) if it was proposed for FA status. I'll close the nomination. Congratulations! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot.Ssriram mt (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]