Talk:Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company

Pre-GA review

I'm taking a break from reviewing articles, but I wanted to give some feedback before a reviewer goes through this article. Currently, there are a few problems that would prevent it from passing:

1. Most importantly, the article needs to be thoroughly sourced. Right now, entire sections are unsourced. Everything in the article must have a reference.
2. The images have no source information.
3. The list in the "As a subsidiary of U.S.S. Corp." section should be converted to prose.
4. The references need to be formatted properly (each web reference needs at least a title, publisher, url, and accessdate). See Wikipedia:Citing sources.
5. The three references at the bottom, since they don't seem to be used to cite any specific information, should be in a new section called "Further reading" (note: the web reference should be formatted like this: [http://www.bhamrails.info Birmingham Rails: Yesterday and Today]).

I hope this helps. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you've been crossing some items off as they're dealt with, which is good. I'm still concerned about the references, though, as there is still a lot of unreferenced content. Every paragraph needs at least one reference, and it's generally frowned upon to end a paragraph without a reference. The article is definitely improving, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well checking through the article I've certainly got a reference in every paragraph. I'm trying my best not to constantly cite the same source in every sentence, as I'm generally picking up information from a few fact-rich books and websites. I'll see what I can add though. I've just got 2 problems that I hope you can help me out with. For one, I have no idea how to add source information to images. Secondly, I've made a massive formatting error in the Dow Jones section that I can't for the life of me rectify. Any ideas? Thanks for taking an interest in my article by the way. I'm not expecting you to enjoy it, but I'm glad that somebody is taking time to help me improve it! grarap (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)grarap

I fixed the formatting. For some reason, if you indent a paragraph, it places the text in a box. It took me a while to figure that out the first time I did it, but it's fixd now. As for the image source, the way I do it is to add the following template:

{{Information |Description= |Source= |Date= |Author= }}

For the description, simply describe the image. For the source, give the url of the place where you found the image. For the date, I believe you use the date that you uploaded the picture to Wikipedia (I may be wrong on this one). For the author, give the person or group that took the picture. I hope this helps, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, done and done. Thanks for the assistance! A few in-line citations need to be added here and there, but I'm pretty confident that the article is ready for a proper GA review! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grarap (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Article categorization

The creator of this article disputes changes made by another editor to its categorization. See discussion here. OccamzRazor (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Using WP articles as references/sources

I note that you use another WP article, Ensley, Birmingham, Alabama, as a source for muliple statements in your Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company article. Perhaps you are not aware that WP articles are not considered a qualifying reliable source, especially when that article itself is unsourced (the only refefence is a dead link). This could hurt your chances in a WP:Good articles review. To improve the article, you should cite qualifying reliable sources for this information. OccamzRazor (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN on hold

Some things need to be worked on before pass/fail:

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I've noticed a few very minor things. Footnotes should go directly after punctuation -- .[1] and not [1]. Also please expand the lead to two full paragraphs which summarize the article, per WP:LEAD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "As a subsidiary of U.S.S. Corp." section is missing references for some statements.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Are you sure you can't expand the "As Tennessee Coal & Iron Division: United States Steel Corporation" section? Check for sources at http://books.google.com, and also http://www.nyt.com and http://www.time.com archives. Your local library services might also have Thomson Gale Infotrac access, or other similar research tools.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Awaiting changes to be made.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. Currently, references 4 and 7 do not qualify as reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this article is already suitable for GFA (GOOD FUCKING ARTICLE) (excuse my italian). It's got everything in it that a fucking excellent article requires. It doesn't need anymore dicking around with unless it's going to be featured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.43.24 (talk • contribs)

Wow, you need to chill out. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Whilst, as article creator, I am admittedly biased, I have to agree with Mr Anonymous IP here. I can't really find anything in this article that prevents it from achieving GA status. Everything is referenced properly, it complies with the MoS (all in-line citations are placed after punctuation if appropriate - I've checked) and the article is comprehensive and well written. If you have any further objections to a GA pass, or could specify precise problems, then please say and I'll correct them in the blink of an eye! grarap (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)grarap

If this isn't GFA status in ONE day i'm going to bust you down wacymacs. Yes that's a threat. Stop trying to stand in the way of progress, who do you think you are? The Pope?

Both of these segments are completely unreferenced:

• "Whilst the new plant was located sufficiently close to Ensley not to necessitate workers from the old town having to relocate, the shift of capital from Ensley to Fairfield stifled the town's development and led to somewhat of a stagnation. Fairfield on the other hand enjoyed frantic population growth and development, with new schools, shops and churches being regularly constructed by the company in line with the scores of new mills and production facilities being opened in the plant."
• "The charge was implemented to negate the competitive edge of Birmingham steel over U.S. Steel's own Pittsburgh product, but intentionally or not the move destroyed a serious competitive advantage that the company held over the overall steel market."

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Whilst it sounds convenient, those are the only two sources (to the very best of my knowledge) that I couldn't find external references for. They will be dutifully removed.grarap (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)grarap

YEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!! WE WIN!!!!! Take that wackymacs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.43.24 (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, play nice. Who are you anyway? Please sign all posts grarap (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)grarap

Book by Douglas A. Blackmon: Slavery by Another Name

No where in this article did I see mention of the Black people who were used as slaves to make TCI what it was and is. It should at least have been mentioned in the history of the company. It really happened for decades and should not be swept under the rug as if it didn't happen. Thousands of men and women lost their lives working for no wages at TCI. They should be acknowledged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.112 (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never come across a source stating that the company utilised slave labour. Indeed, I have never heard of slaves being used in Southern industry at all. TCI only existed for 13 years before slavery was abolished, five of those during the Civil War. If you can provide evidence that TCI employed slaves, then I will add the information to the article. Alternately, you give it a try. grarap (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)grarap

The expression "slave labor" should be used parenthetically but the company did use leased convict labor under harsh conditions and many of the convicts were there on minor infractions. I have seen articles which over sensationalize the history of TCI but it also does not make any sense to say nothing about it at all. My great grandfather was a company executive who left the company after working there for several years partly as a result of conflict with the Southern shareholders the issue. RichardBond (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pratt Mines Picture

That isn't a picture of a mine. Rather, it's a picture of a early form of coking plant. The coal is charged into the ovens from the top, using the funnel-shaped hopper cars pushed along the tracks along the top of the brick structures (each a 'battery' of ovens) then sealed inside and heated to drive off the volatile compounds and leave behind a nearly pure carbon structure. The oven is then allowed to cool, and the coke is raked out through the little arch-shaped openings along the bottom of the battery. Kalmbach (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Fascinating stuff! grarap (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)grarap