Talk:Reading Railroad Massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 01:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
"10–16 people were killed and 20-203" - you've got a long dash in-between the first two numbers and a short one between the next lot
Done

"too much race jealousy" - perhaps link 'race' to Race (human categorization), assuming that's what you mean here
Done

"back pay being owed them, but they were payed" - can you reword this somehow to clarify they were paid after threatening to strike? Again, assuming that is the case. The current wording reads a bit awkwardly.
I rewrote this section pretty substantially. Reading is strange because the strikes were the backdrop and not actually central to events regarding the outbreak of violence. Whereas in other cities, strikes bled directly into violence, in Reading the violence was caused mostly by other violence in larger cities. By 23 July, there was more or less a feeling that all of Pennsylvania was burning, and similar to what happened in Baltimore, there was resentment for the soldiery themselves, being perceived as a tool of the railroad, marching to neighboring towns to crush their brethren.

I'd remove the piping of "Roof shingles" to "shingles"; just calling it a roof shingle from the beginning will clear up any confusion about what it is.
Done

I'd wikilink Caboose ("two cabooses, seven freight cars")
Done

"8 short tons" - should this be 'eight short tons'?
Done

"The damage was estimated at $150,000" - an estimation of what this is worth today adjusting for inflation would be interesting
I've tried to do this at least once before and it's damn near impossible to do accurately. As was explained to me at the time (I believe it was trying to estimate destruction on the Pittsburgh article), there is a difference between giving a modern day equivalent of the value of currency as opposed to the cost of goods. Since you're talking about goods that were destroyed, and not plain money (as you might be in comparing historic wages), the modern day cost of repairing the bridge would not be a simple WP:CALC with regard to inflation, but would be a complex calculation regarding the cost of labor, equipment, and materials, at modern day prices. Doing so would require intimate knowledge of how they arrived at the $150k figure, and not just the figure itself. But at that point of complexity in the calculations, you start to run into OR problems.

"At 6:30 pm, on July 23, the Reading Coal and Iron Police, a private force from the railroad, arrived" - this strikes me as one too many commas; I'd lose the one after 6:30pm
Done

"and businesses shuttered" - what does this mean?
Changed to "closed".

"The Eagle has never been called" - I'd wikilink 'The Eagle' to Reading Eagle
Already linked to two sections above.

"The regulars now garrisoned in the city would never fire on it's citizens." - Should this sentence be within quote marks? If not, it seems a bit editorial.
Removed

"In a later trial, 13 out of 14 charged were acquitted." - Can you tell us what happened to the person who wasn't acquitted? What was the charge/sentence?
Done, at least as specific as the source is.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Definitely not a fail point but it would be nice to get a photo of that commemorative marker.
As I learned here, this is actually a hot mess, and because a historical marker is technically a three dimensional "sculpture", you would have to get the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office to certify that they release the likeness of the marker in a way that is consistent with WP licensing with regard to c:COM:FOP. Either that or you have to take a massively wide angle image and claim c:COM:DM, but to qualify the marker has to be such an insignificant part of the image so as to be nearly useless for readers. Find me a politician that will reform freedom of panorama laws in the US and you've found a politician that'll get my vote. GMG ^talk 11:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Looks really good. Placing on hold until issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replies are all understandable. Happy for this to pass now. Congrats. Freikorp (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]