Talk:1914–1915 Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills strike/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 00:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Good ol' Southern textile history. I'll take this review. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Lede
-Indy beetle (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * with historian Ileen A. DeVault saying that the millworkers were among "Atlanta's most ardent unionists" Excise this line from the lede for concision.
 * Done.
 * Shortly after the outset of the strike, the company evicted striking families from their company-owned houses. Many found shelter in a boarding house rented out by the UTW to house striking workers during the strike. Lots of strike/striking. Perhaps remove "to house striking workers during the strike", as it's kind of implied why the UTW would provide them housing.
 * Done.
 * The former petitioned for Federal intervention no need to capitalize federal.
 * Done.
 * one spy rising the ranks of the union rising in the ranks
 * Done.
 * However, by February 1915, Golden had returned to UTW headquarters and many strikers were pessimistic about their chances of winning the strike. For the sake of variability, perhaps change "winning the strike" to "securing a favorable outcome".
 * Done.
 * and a lack of participation from rank and file strikers in strike decision-making, with much of the strike being organized by outside organizers from the UTW. For the sake of concision in the lede, remove "with much of the strike being organized by outside organizers from the UTW."
 * Done.

Background

 * According to historian Mark K. Bauman, Elsas employed industrial paternalism within his company and the mills. I'm curious, John Elsas seems to have made conditions at his plant better than average so as to attract a good workforce, but then did these decline over time? Did Oscar Elsas make things worse? Or was this simply the dark flipside of John Elsas' industrial paternalism?
 * Based on my readings, I would have to lean towards the latter, as I didn't notice any sort of decline mentioned in any of the references.
 * The town had been condemned as a health hazard by the Atlanta Sanitary Department. Did the Atlanta government consider razing the settlement or expelling residents? That's usually what happens to condemned property.
 * I'm not sure, the source only mentions (somewhat in passing) that it had been condemned, and offers little further commentary.
 * in the time needed to state your intent to quit from five days to six days to state one's intent
 * Done.

Course of the strike

 * Deputies from the Fulton County Sheriff's Office, with African American workers hired by the company,[75] began evicting families en masse. To my knowledge it was indeed common to enlist the local sheriff's office in strikebreaking activities. Is it known who the sheriff was at the time and why he chose to enforce the evictions (seeing as the Atlanta authorities were sympathetic to the strikers and did not)?
 * Unfortunately, the references are unclear as to the differences in sympathies between the police department and sheriff.
 * Additionally, on June 9, Smith discovered two spies who had been active within the union and, while she had intended to have them arrested Was that actually possible i.e. were there laws against subversive infiltration of private organizations in Georgia at the time?
 * Unfortunately, the source is unclear about this, that is, for what the two spies would have been arrested for.
 * Daly had composed a 49-page report on the strike and conditions at the mills, which, in addition to criticisms of the company's policies and working and living conditions, questioned the legality of the employment contract. Any areas of particularly legal interest? The state courts had already ruled in favor of the quitting-notice provision.
 * Yes, Daly questioned the contract on the grounds that it lacked mutuality. I'll add that to the article.
 * the strikers made repairs and cleaned up the area, showing that despite the difficult situation and Preston's predictions, the strike was not going to end soon. I don't know if we should really include that kind of crystal ball language. Perhaps reword to say "showing that despite the difficult situation and Preston's predictions, the workers were determined to the continue the strike" or something similar.
 * Done.
 * While Miles was widely criticized for reimbursement agreements he had made with the AFT (which had accumulated debt over the course of supporting the strike Who was in debt to who?
 * Based on the source, the AFT was in debt, with Miles promising that the UTW would reimburse them for their expenses.
 * Smith had been the subject of an intense smear campaign during the strike Link smear campaign.
 * Done.
 * Golden hoped to reinvigorate the strike and carried out several reforms, including banning alcohol, Ah, temperance, the way to good southern Christian's heart (circa early 1900s)! Was alcohol banned in the the tent city, or were the union members prohibited from drinking it entirely?
 * Clarified in the article that alcohol was banned in the tent city itself, unsure about for the union members overall.
 * sending union agents into the mills to recruit more strikers I'd imagine Elsas wouldn't approve. Was this an act of infiltration, or did the union organizers simply walk into the mills and ask for support?
 * Act of infiltration, edited article to clarify.

Aftermath and analysis

 * Did UTW and AFL make any changes to their tactics after the failure of the strike?
 * I'm not sure, as I was unable to find much on how the strike impacted the union's techniques and goals moving forward.
 * Bodies such as the Commission on Industrial Relations were active during this time. Was there no federal study of or interest in the strike? No mentions in the Georgia state house?
 * I added additional information on the final CIR report.

Other comments

 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector returns some crossover, but this is mostly in the use of the names of certain organizations; no obvious copyvio concerns. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Hey, apologies for the late response, but I went ahead and edited the page to address the points you raised in your review. I hope that the changes were satisfactory and if there are any further questions, comments, or concerns with the article, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good here. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)