Talk:Federated Moulders' (Metals) Union of Australia/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) 04:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parking this here for the review.--Goldsztajn (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead is not a proper summary of the article, it is more an introduction, needs to cover the notable issues related to the union (eg establishing the metal trades alliances, struggles against piece rate work, gender politics). Lead discusses different political orientation of state branches, but this aspect not discussed within the article. Lead should not have footnotes unless an item is highly contentious (which is not the case here). The relevant footnotes should be with appropriate material in the body of the article. I've rewritten the lead and moved all references into the main body of the text.Warrenjs1 (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig detects no violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	4 areas of concern to address: 1. Lead as discussed above (lead needs to be re-written as a summary rather than introduction). 2. Clarify the origins of the organisation in Victoria. (Friendly) Society of Iron Moulders was established in 1858... this seems to me to be the forerunner organisation (see illustration from 1873 and Rules of the Iron Moulders' Society of Victoria : established September 11th, 1858). added some clarification regarding alternate names for the pre-federation Victorian body - naming conventions for 19th century colonial unions (before the registration requirements of the various arbitration acts) were much more ad-hoc.Warrenjs1 (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply] 3. It would be good to have some sense of the political positions of the union - the article touches on gender issues, but would be good if there was more information. The role of the far left (CPA) in the union could be elaborated. State branches in NSW, Victoria and Queensland supported the Vietnam Moratorium (see The Trade Unions in Australia and Opposition to Vietnam and Conscription: 1965-73 p.81) Unfortunately there's only a very limited amount of information on this subject published online - I don't have access to the paywalled Saunders 1983 paper. The limited references I have available indicate CPA linkages in some states but a more conservative political disposition in others, as mentioned in the article. I'll look to move this point out of the lead, as per 1b.Warrenjs1 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply] I've now included reference to the article on involvement in the Moratorium Movement - thanks for the tip re JSTOR. I've also moved discussion of the union's political inclinations (still fairly sparse) out of the lead.Warrenjs1 (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] 4. A link early in the article to craft unionism should be included (probably within the lead). Done.Warrenjs1 (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Excellent use of images. While not required for GA status, alt-text descriptions would be good to enhance accessibility. Some other images to consider to add to the article (all of which appear to be public domain): FMMUA 8 hour day campaign ribbon (1921) Ironmoulders Society of Victoria banner added image to article.Warrenjs1 (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] 1899/1911 Membership certificate flyer for 1941 May Day demo which illustrates the late 1930s-40s metal trades alliance in Sydney Added alt text.Warrenjs1 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Article is very close to GA – if the four issues in point 3a can be addressed it will be GTG.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Response

Status query

Goldsztajn, Warrenjs1, where does this review stand? It looks like Warrenjs1 has made edits to address all four issues in point 3a, though I don't know whether all of Goldsztajn's concerns have been satisfied. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to address the issues raised, however I'm happy to make further changes if it's deemed necessary.Warrenjs1 (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Warrenjs1: apologies for the delay, I'll come back to this within the week. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Warrenjs1 − I've had a chance to reread the article now and all my comments have been addressed. I've made a minor copy-edit to the lede and linked some important points, although I have added one point about the union's attitude towards women's employment which I think is significant enough to be at the top. Thank you for your work in bringing this article up to GA status. In solidarity, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.