Talk:1937 Fleischer Studios strike/GA1

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

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 10:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, JJonahJackalope. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be reviewing this nomination. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead length
My first impression upon reading this article is that the lead is very lengthy. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, it should ideally be four paragraphs or shorter, suggesting around 300 words. The lead currently sits at nearly 700 words. I'd suggest cutting out some of it. After you've made some revisions, I'll come back to the lead later to suggest possible revisions. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the lead, though let me know if you have any further comments for it.

Working conditions at Fleischer Studios
ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In the early years of the studio, the brothers tried to foster a strong sense of camaraderie among their employees (emphasis mine) - I can't find this in the source, specifically that they intentionally did this. The author writes that there was a "sense of family that pervaded the Studio", which is about all I could find in the source.
 * Edited this section of the sentence to remove "tried", instead stated that there simply was a feeling of camaraderie among the employees.
 * Max was generally considered a paternalistic boss - The sources don't say that he was "generally" considered this. This might be nitpicking, but they just outright say he was paternalistic. If it's too WP:WIKIVOICE-y to outright say it, maybe find a way to paraphrase it.
 * Rephrased this section of the sentence, added and wikilinked the authors of the sources from which the information was gathered to avoid Wikivoice.
 * such as Max's son-in-law Seymour Kneitel - The source doesn't say that Seymour worked there. It says that his daughter Ruth worked there until she married Seymour. If you can find another source that says he worked there, then please use that as a reference instead.
 * Moved the Pointer 2017 source from Further reading to Sources and cited p. 62 in that book, which shows Seymour Kneitel as a member of the Fleischer Studios staff.
 * two of Max's alma maters - The source make any mention of this as far as I can tell.
 * The source (Deneroff 1987, p. 1) states, "Max Fleischer himself had attended Cooper Union and the Art Students' League". Per the WP article on the subject, an alma mater is "a school that a person formerly attended or graduated from".
 * Remove the space before Note 1
 * Done.
 * new hires making as low as $17.40 per week - The source says "less skilled workers were earning as little as $17.40 per week". "less skilled workers" and "new hires" are not the same.
 * Removed the phrase "new hires".
 * These low wages may have been because of a large labor pool for Fleischer to hire from - The source does not make this claim anywhere. This reads like original research.
 * Removed this part of the sentence and rephrased the remaining bit that discussed the impact the closure of Van Beuren had on wages, per Koszarski 2008.
 * due in large part to the closure of The Van Beuren Corporation - The source does not say that it was in large part due to it closing down. It just says that the closing lowered salaries in the industry. It does not specify whether the wages at the Fleischer Studio were caused by this. A better way of rewriting this entire sentence might be something like "Wages in the animation industry were affected negatively by the closure of the Van Beuren Corporation". Tweak as you see fit. I'd suggest finding a source that makes a direct connection between these.
 * Discussed the changes made in the bullet point above. I may do some more digging to see if there are any sources that more directly link the closure of Van Beuren to decreased wages at Fleischer, but from what I recall, the Koszarski 2008 source was the only one I saw that discussed it at any length.
 * many of the younger new hires lived - The source does not call them "new hires"
 * Replaced "new hires" with "employees".

Unionization
ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, CADU was a popular front organization with ties to the Communist Party of the United States, which provided support and planning for the union
 * Remove the word "indeed", per MOS:EDITORIAL
 * Done.
 * The source does not state that the Communist Party provided support for the group
 * Rephrased section to more accurately reflect the connection between the CADU and the Communist Party.
 * with union activists believing that - The source just says "apparently". I'm not sure who the author considered this apparent to, so just find a way to attribute this information to the author.
 * Rephrased sentence to directly attribute the information to Deneroff.
 * many inbetweeners believed - The source says "he and others" believed this. Please revise.
 * Edited sentence, additionally fixed reference, as the information is found on p. 8, not p. 7.

CADU seeks...
ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * employees who had been affiliated in some fashion with the union - The source just says "13 more Union members were fired". It doesn't seem appropriate to characterize members of the union as "affiliated in some fashion", which suggests uncertainty.
 * Rephrased section accordingly.
 * I suggest changing 13 employees to "thirteen employees", including the number 13 on its own a sentence later. [not really necessary ArcticSeeress (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)]
 * Changed from 13 to thirteen.
 * that they would honor the picket line. (emphasis mine) - Who is this "they" referring to? It makes logical sense for it to be the animators and animators' assistants, but the referrent is still syntactically ambiguous. I'd suggest revising.
 * Replaced "they" with "animators".

Early strike actions
ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * and Lillian Friedman Astor - Deneroff 1987, p. 10 says that she respected the picket line until Thursday. Maybe revise this a bit.
 * Added note specifying that Astor initially honored the picket line, but returned to work during the strike.

Boycott
Nothing to comment on here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

NLRB hearings
Nothing to comment on. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

End of the strike
ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * until late 1937 - Why not specify the date? The source says it ended on October 13.
 * I added a note regarding Koszarski's date of October 13 to a later part of this section dealing with the agreement that had been reached between the union and the studio.
 * while the company was supporter a fan of organized labor - What does this mean?
 * Apologies for the typo there, but I have rephrased the sentence to include information from Sito regarding Paramount's role in the strike.

Contract details
ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , one week of paid time off for sick days and vacation - The sources are kind of vague here: Sito 2006 states "one week of paid vacation, holidays, sick leave"; Hunt 2020 states "vacations and sick leave with pay". The first quote is up to interpretation of whether "holidays" and "sick leave" are part of the "one week" or part of the "Fleischer consented to". Strictly speaking, the list only states that they were consented to by Fleischer. If this is an error on the author's side, then it might be best to either exclude this information, or find another source that states the parts of the agreement with clearer language. As it stands, it seems like you synthesized information from the two sources to come up with this statement.
 * Rephrased the sentence slightly and added a note giving further information regarding the exact phrasing from the sources.

Later history
ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The strike severely changed the dynamic in the office, as animator Orsestes Calpini recalls, "the family feeling was gone". - There should be a semicolon instead of a comma, as they are two independent clauses.
 * Done.
 * which occurred less than a year later - The source says "The following year". The information mentioned prior was in October 1937, so therefore sometime in 1938. Where do you get "less than a year later" from this? Is there no more specific info on this?
 * The "less than a year later", in the context of the Wikipedia article, references January 21, 1938, when Max announced his plans to move. As the move occurred in 1938 (since the Hunt article states that it occurred the following year from 1937), it would have been less than a year after the January 1938 announcement.
 * the union had a much smaller presence at the new location - The source just says "union presence". It mentions no specific union.
 * Slightly rephrased sentence.

Image review
All images used in the article have appropriate licencing. Captions are fine. I'd appreciate alt text, but that is not a GA criterion. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Preliminary assessment
The article has some issue for now. I'll put the article on hold until you can rectify them. Good work on the article so far. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I just realised the assessment I gave is quite vague, so: The article has some issues with original research (as far as I could tell). Otherwise the article seems to be in accordance with the other GA criteria (except for a sentence I couldn't make out the meaning of, i.e. criteria 1a). ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , I just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have made some edits to the article to address the points you raised in your review. Thank you for initiating this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns regarding the article, please let me know. Thanks, JJonahJackalope (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't believe my brain managed to confuse "alma maters" with "graduates". Oops! I still think the lead may be too long, so maybe I'll ask for a second opinion on it after I've looked over your changes. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * stated that The New York Times reported that - I feel like this is a bit of an awkward sentence. Maybe find a way to rephrase it. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I just realised you may not have this in your watchlist. Here's your ping; @JJonahJackalope. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , hey, just wanted to reach out to let you know that I rephrased that footnote, which I agree, was awkwardly phrased. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added a comma to the note to split up the subordinate and the independent clauses. Reading through the lead, there isn't anything that stands out. While I commented the length of the lead earlier, the way it is now is sufficient to reach GA status. Maybe an FA reviewer would be more stringent, but I don't really see myself holding a nomination back because of one potential issue. I'll go through the criteria again in a bit. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

GA criteria

 * 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):
 * While the lead is lengthy, it is not a deal breaker.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * While originally containing unverified material, that has been rectified by the nominator.
 * 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * See "image review" section above.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article fulfills all the GA criteria.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article fulfills all the GA criteria.

I'll give this article a pass. Good work! ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)