Template:Did you know nominations/Baltimore municipal strike of 1974; Baltimore police strike

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Baltimore municipal strike of 1974, Baltimore police strike

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

~~.... that striking garbage collectors and police officers crippled the city of Baltimore for 1 week in 1974?~~/

Alt 1. ... that numerous piles of trash were set ablaze when Baltimore's garbage collectors and police officers conducted overlapping strikes in July 1974? Created/expanded by Groupuscule (talk). Self nom at 21:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The municipal strike article is fine and new enough. The article on Baltimore police strike was started in 2005. It would only be eligible for DYK if it has recently been expanded by 5. Presuming that you are looking at it before and after your expansion. The edit before was 2853 characters. Current version is 12304 characters - a 4.3x increase. However we already have one eligible article - we just need to unbold the police link.

The article needs better structure. It's not really in paragraphs as much as bullet points. Can you turn this into paragraphs? Also the article doesn't say that it crippled Baltimore, unless I'm missing it. That claim needs to be in the article and with a reference. The grievances para needs references. Apart from this - thanks for writing about US labour history! Secretlondon (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this okay now? Are DYK reviewers on strike here as well? --PFHLai (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well the author hasn't commented, so.. Secretlondon (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, hello! I'll see about making the article a little less bullet-point-y tonight, and perhaps in the process cross the coveted 5x threshold. (But it seems to be n.b.d. if that doesn't happen, right?) Thanks for your attention. groupuscule (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

How does it look now? groupuscule (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the police article only. Its structure could still improve, but in my opinion, that does not hold up DYK. Five times expansion has now been reached; not within 5 days, but given it's a rather substantial article, I suggest that it's ok. I've placed a citation needed tag - please see to that. Other sentences are also unreferenced, but if proper paragraphs were formed, this wouldn't be an issue, so let's say this is ok. The police officers weren't on strike for a week, and it doesn't say that the city was crippled (it talks about increase in arson and looting), so the article does not support the hook fact. I don't know whether the other article confirms the hook facts, though. I would prefer if both articles confirmed the hook. Maybe the hook should talk about rubbish being set alight (given that the rubbish was lying around because of the municipal strike action, and arson increased due to reduced police presence). So all in all, there's a bit more work needed here. I have done some limited checking for copyviolations using Duplication Detector. Most sources sit behind Pro Quest, though, to which I don't have access, so if somebody else with access could have a look at a sample of references, that would be good. Schwede 66 19:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination needs a new hook, since articles don't support the "crippled" assertion, and cannot proceed without it. Citation needed tag has been satisfied and removed. Material from Pro Quest sources can be considered AGF. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll work on this today. Maybe something a little less incendiary (actually, come to think of it, maybe something more incendiary, since fires were set and these were related to both the police & trash strikes!!) for the hook and the article lead. As far as ProQuest goes, I wasn't happy about the wall, either, but that's how you get most of those newspaper articles. However, you may be interested to know that I got (limited) ProQuest access through the website of my local library (Baltimore EPFL)—all I needed was a library card number. It's seven or eight "historical newspapers" including NYT, Baltimore Sun, Washington Post, and Christian Science Monitor. Actually quite a good research tool, and maybe other libraries have it. Also, I tried to include the most relevant quotations from the articles in the references section. Finally (and I know you already said you were going to AGF, but...) if you're interested in seeing an article in particular and can't get it another way, I am happy to backchannel. Thanks for your help and patience on this DYK, everybody!

New hook suggested, with leads revised accordingly. groupuscule (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nearly there, but not quite. I've had a look at both articles with regards to confirming the hook fact. The Police article is ok. The other article needs a couple of references (one section is unreferenced, and the sentence that states the hook fact needs a ref, too). I've marked the article accordingly, so that it's easy to find where attention is needed. For future reference, it would be better to write a completely new hook (mark it as ALT1 with ascending numbering) than to change the original hook, as changing it can get messy when you try and follow a previous discussion. Schwede 66 09:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've given the nominator a wee poke. Schwede 66 06:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Schwede66. I think I have addressed your concerns with the article. I've also restored the original hook with strikeout, and the new hook under Alt1 for clarity. <3, groupuscule (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. ALT1 is good to go. Schwede 66 08:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)