Talk:Baltimore railroad strike of 1877

Feature?
I think you ought to clean up some of the (minor) POV issues before putting in for FA; whether some of the dead were strikers, rioters, or in the wrong place at the wrong time is glossed over in the lead. Anmccaff (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I've at least changed "strikers" to "civilians". The distinction, as you probably well know, between who was exactly what is pretty murky, and it is probably presumptuous to label them definitively like that. You can almost certainly find one of the sources using that language, but you can probably also just as well find a source calling them just outright miscreants and the distinction be damned. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. "Three dead" or "three civilians dead" is better than "three strikers/rioters/heroes of the revolution/innocent bystanders killed", unless you know for a fact who exactly got killed, how, and doing what. I's also often unclear, even in cases where someone was unambiguously shot by the militia, whether that killed them, or their treatment, or lack of it, immediately after. Middle of an ongoing riot is a bad place to get hurt. Anmccaff (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Heh. 150 years ago was a bad time to get hurt period. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Noted this had come up at the FA pages - some good work here, and a really interesting theme. A couple of quick thoughts:
 * Worth giving it a scrub for metric/imperial equivalents.
 * Also worth checking for abbreviations, e.g "when this wasn't feasible"
 * And for underlinking (e.g. "Springfield breech loading rifle" could be usefully linked)
 * And check that each reference is in a consistent style (e.g. do you give just publisher, or location and publisher etc.)
 * My main issue at FA review would be the use of the newspapers of the period as reliable secondary sources. In some cases, you're carefully attributing the information to the newspaper, which makes clear that it's not a statement that's been reviewed by a modern historian, but a contemporary piece of press reporting ("On July 26, The Sun reported 3,000 draymen, 600 oil men, and 1,500 stevedores out of work as a result of the embargo.") We don't really know if this is accurate or not, but it is clear that it is a newspaper statement. In other cases, a newspaper account is listed as fact, e.g. "There was a general hope that owing to the imminent increase in traffic due to the transportation of harvested crops, the fireman would be able to make daily trips, and that the company could arrange for them to return home on passenger trains when this wasn't feasible, which would save them from the burden of long layovers away from home." I'd be strongly advising an article on labour disputes in the 19th century to be drawing whenever possible on reliable modern academic sources, and to be extremely scrupulous about attributing any press material to the newspaper concerned. (WP:PRIMARY would apply here) Hchc2009 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Images
File:Camden Station in 1868.jpg

File:Great Railroad Strike plaque, Baltimore 01 (cropped).jpg

These images have been removed in the meantime pending verification. Timothy Joseph Wood 16:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

FAC
Hey Sarastro1. I did totally derp on your comments there that I missed. Not to leave things untidy, mostly when I mention the names of authors it's to point out where sources disagree, just as sources that disagree without trying to make editorial judgement about which one may be better. As to more modern authors, I agree, and that is on my list of things to do, for this and several related articles. T J W talk   21:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

thankz
tanks you Oloy fuady (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)