Talk:1945–1946 Charleston Cigar Factory strike/GA1

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

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 14:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments
I'll do this review. Expect full comments within a few days. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Due to the war, the union agreed to not conduct any strike action for the duration of the conflict, and in turn the company agreed to institute pay raises after the war was over. You can remove "due to the war" here, the rest of the sentence makes the wartime situation apparent.
 * Removed.
 * Additionally, following the war's conclusion in 1945, the company received roughly $1.3 million in repayment from the excess profits tax that had been levied during the war. Was this a tax refund? If so, "repayment" could be swapped for "refunded" and it then Wikilinked. "that had been levied during the war" can also be removed, since the previous sentence already introduces the tax.
 * Done.
 * Is it known why American Tobacco withheld some wages from December 1944 to October 1945? Short-term financing issues?
 * Unsure, unfortunately none of the sources I could find discussed the rationale.
 * Many historians note that the strike was significant in bringing together black and white individuals towards a common goal, a rarity in the Southern United States at the time. I see this is meant as sort of an introduction to the paragraph it begins, but in avoidance of WP:SYNTH, do we have a source which affirms that such action was "a rarity in the Southern United States at the time"? Or a source for "many historians"? If not for the latter case, I recommend changing "many" to "some", as that is evident enough with the current sourcing and text.
 * Added sources, changed "many" to "some".
 * As a result, in 1966, the Cigar Factory fired 900 workers "lay off" may be more precise than "fired".
 * Changed.
 * Might be worth mentioning that the strike is depicted in a historical fiction novel, The Cigar Factory (book review by Charleston Magazine, I recommend citing this). -Indy beetle (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Added information on the book, cited source.

Assessment checklist

 * 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:
 * , just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have made some edits to the article to address the points you made in your review. Thank you for beginning this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, seems good now. Passing. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * , just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have made some edits to the article to address the points you made in your review. Thank you for beginning this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, seems good now. Passing. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have made some edits to the article to address the points you made in your review. Thank you for beginning this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, seems good now. Passing. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)