Talk:Colorado Coalfield War/GA2

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

Reviewer: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 01:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll take this, should be about seven days with the review. Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rapid turn-around! I'll be periodically checking in so if there are any issues I'll work to immediately rectify them. Of that causes any issues just tag me! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, Goldsztajn, hope you are well! Just wanted to reach out regarding this GA nomination. If you have any updates that I can be actionable on, let me know! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , apologies for the delay, I'll be back with detailed comments by the weekend. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , there is absolutely no hurry. I won't be properly free next to review anything for another few days anyway! Appreciate the communication! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry to ping you again but I wanted to check in with you before I'm mostly busy for the weekend and wouldn't be able to respond. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * friendly reminder about this (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , acknowledging the nudge, kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * &, what is the status of this review? --Usernameunique (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , delayed! :) If I cannot finish within the next 7 days, I will withdraw. Thanks for everyone's patience. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , in the event that is unable to complete the review, what are my options for recourse? I have waited three months for this review to be complete and I’m willing to wait a while yet but would prefer not to. Thanks to both of you for your efforts. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary

 * Hi - as part of the review process I'm going over the previous GA review.  I'd like to be sure that as much as possible has been clearly addressed from that review. Also, it will possibly take a bit of time to complete this review, so I see it proceeding in a few stages.  I believe my initial comments can be addressed relatively easily.  In terms of ease of following your responses, can you indent your comments under each bullet point.  Thanks! --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary: references

 * Three of the non-fiction texts mentioned in the further reading (Killing for Coal, Blood Passion and Buried Unsung) are cited within the article; they are not therefore further reading texts. The other text is a journal article from an author already cited - it's not clear why this one text would be significant for further reading. I would suggest just keeping the fiction section and dropping the non-fiction section.


 * The reference to DeStefanis' PhD should use the template and not:  .  "Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects" is not a journal title. ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Heckscher, August (1991). Woodrow Wilson. Norwalk, CT: Easton Press — No ISBN ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Seligman, Edwin R. A. (5 November 1914). "Colorado's Civil War and Its Lessons". Frank Leslie's Weekly. Retrieved 20 February 2020 – via Accessible Archives — link doesn't work ✅ This source is closed access and generally requires either a subscription or university access. Sourced info does not exist elsewhere. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Sunseri, Alvin (1972). "The Ludlow Massacre: A study in the mis-employment of the National Guard". University of Northern Iowa — What is this reference? Monograph, book, article?? There are not enough details to verify this reference.
 * ✅ This is a print report created by Sunseri and held by the Denver Library's special collections and other public libraries, but is not available in a scanned online format or on JSTOR. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Bovsun, Mara. "Justice Story: Women, kids killed in bloody 1913 Ludlow Massacre during coal strike" — No date of publication, no source. ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Papanikolas, Zeese (1982). Buried Unsung: Louis Tikas and the Ludlow Massacre. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. — No ISBN ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Adams Jr., Graham (1966). "VII: Massacre in Colorado". Age of Industrial Violence 1910-1915: The Activities and Findings of the United States Commission on Industrial Relations. New York City: Columbia University Press. — No ISBN. ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Sullivan, Mark, ed. (7 February 1914). "The Issues at Calumet". Collier's. 52 (21). — Link to Collier's and add ISSN. ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "CAPTAIN HILDRETH FROST PAPERS". Western History and Genealogy. Denver: Denver Public Library. p. FF11. Retrieved 19 February 2020. — Link doesn't work.
 * ✅ This is a link to the page on the Denver Library site for the documents in their special collections. Unfortunately, they have not yet been scanned but when they are they will appear here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Colorado Coalfield War 1913-14" (PDF). Charleston, SC: College of Charleston. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 January 2021. Retrieved 2 April 2020. — What is this? It seems to be course notes... is the information provided here not available from a more reliable source?
 * ✅ Source was extraneous anyhow. Info available elsewhere. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hart, Steve; Osterhout, Shannon (15 June 2014). "2014 Mining History Association Tour: Historic Coal and Coking Camps - Starkville, Cokedale, Boncarbo, Berwind Canyon, Hastings, and Ludlow". mininghistoryassociation.org. Mining History Association. Archived from the original on 31 July 2020. Retrieved 7 April 2020. — Repetition of source, remove mininghistoryassociation.org ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Creel, George (1947). "The Colorado Coal Strike". Rebel at Large: Recollections of Fifty Crowded Years. New York City: Van Rees Press. Retrieved 14 April 2021. — No ISBN, chapter title is not necessary page reference already included, title of website is not title of text, should be used, not . ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Conarroe, Carol, The Louisville Story. Louisville, CO: Conarroe, 1978 — No ISBN ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Laurie; Cole (1997). The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1877–1945. Washington: Center of Military History, United States Army. — Add link to text, as far as I can see there does not appear to be an ISBN for this text, but perhaps you can see one?
 * ✅ ISBN found, though may be from a reprint. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hallahan, Kirk (October 2002). "Ivy Lee and the Rockefellers' Response to the 1913-1914 Colorado Coal Strike". Journal of Public Relations Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. p. 268. Archived from the original on 19 March 2021. Retrieved 18 March2021. — researchgate.net is an unreliable source; this seems to be the final version of the work and a reliable source: ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Smith, Gerald (17 December 2015). "Bowers worked with Rockefeller, left legacy in Broome". Retrieved 18 March 2020 – via pressconnects. — Source is Pressconnects, not via Pressconnects ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Mintz, S.; McNeill, S. (2018). ""Ludlow Massacre" By Woody Guthrie". Digital History. Archived from the original on 19 January 2021. Retrieved 12 January 2020. — Hosted on University of Houston website, that should be the source. Mintz and McNeill are essentially editors, the authorship here is Woody Guthrie, reference should indicate that. ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, that's the first part. --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary: images and captions
In general this is a very well illustrated article. Most of my comments are related to minor improvements. None of the images have alt text, it's not a criteria for GA status that they do, but I always encourage editors to add alt text to improve accessibility.


 * Image in infobox (Colorado_nat_guard_arrive_ludlow_strike.jpg): I'm really in two minds about this photo; it's important and significant, it demonstrates the extent of the armed force deployed by the state during the dispute, but it also appears absent of context. Many of the major conflict articles use a mosiac of images in the infobox, I think that would be good here. I'll suggest a few images which could be included further below. However the image is used, it should be cropped at Commons to remove the caption (Let me know, I can do this, if you cannot).
 * image now cropped.--Goldsztajn (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum: caption is inaccurate. Image depicts National Guardsmen entering Ludlow riding atop railcarriages (cough, railcars), not guarding positions. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC) ✅--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Recovery_of_Casualties_After_Primero_Explosion.jpg: caption needs correction, image illustrates the recovery of a casualty (singular, not plural). ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ludlow_Death_Car.jpg: image is on English Wikipedia, link to source of image is broken. Image should be moved to Commons (the image is available here ).  Caption should read: Known as Death Special, Baldwin-Felts detectives with a vehicle-mounted M1895 machine gun. ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * View_west_from_Water_Tank_Hill_into_Berwind_Canyon,_c._1910-1920.png: not at all clear what is the purpose of this photo, many other photos in the article illustrate the geography of the location, this seems superfluous and I cannot see connection to the text. ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Ludlow_Tent_Colony_Before_the_Fire,_1914.jpg: Caption needs to clarify this is the tent colony of the miners and their families following eviction from company housing ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Ladies_Voting_Assembly_of_Southern_Colorado_March_in_Support_of_Mother_Jones,_1913.png: a minor quibble with this caption... was Mother Jones, repeatedly arrested or jailed? To me, jailing is the result of being convicted and being sentenced; is that the case here? If not, perhaps, "repeatedly arrested and detained"? It seems to me her treatment is actually false imprisonment, but without a RS indicating that... Mother Jones should be linked in the caption.


 * Zanetell_tent_at_Forbes_tent_colony.png: add date of image (February, 1914). Why is "exposure" piped to hypothermia? If the source indicates exposure, but we don't have clear indication of hypothermia, then don't link. I don't have access to Thomas' Killing for Coal, but the image source does not indicate cause of death. As well, the image source indicates the deaths were prior to the destruction of the Forbes Colony ("Emma Zanatell [sic] (in tent) gave birth to twins. The babys [sic] died and while the people from the tent colony were in Trinidad burying them, the militia destroyed the tent colony at Forbes"); does Thomas contradict this?


 * National_Guard_Position_on_Water_Tank_Hill_near_Ludlow,_Colorado,_1914.png: add date to caption ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * National_Guardsmen_in_Ludlow,_20_April,_1914.png: add date to caption. Caption is wildly misleading! These are Guardsmen *posing* in the ruins of the Ludlow colony following its destruction and the massacre. ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Colorado_National_Guard_at_Ludlow_Saloon_1914.png: add date to caption ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * President_of_UMWA_District_15_John_McLennan_in_custody_with_Major_Patrick_Hamrock.jpg: add date to caption
 * Addendum: I've found the original of this photo at the Denver Public Library archive, which is not cropped, it's a better version.  I'll add this to Commons and replace in the article. However, the captioning there gives no indication that McLennon is in custody (nor does the source  for the current version of the image).  What is the sourcing for the claim that this image depicts McLennan's arrest/detention? (the lack of visible hands, possibly indicates being hand-cuffed, but that's just my speculation). --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Karl_linderfelt.jpg: image should be cropped and moved to Commons ✅--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * John_D._Rockefeller_and_Mackenzie_King_at_Valdez,_Colorado_in_1915.jpg: Mackenzie King should be linked in the caption ✅ ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, that's the second part. --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! I am wholly unfamiliar with the cropping process so if you could do this, I will greatly appreciate it. I found a cropped version of the first image here. Similarly, the mosaic process is something new to me and if you would be willing to do it, I'll owe you a solid. The images that I think are suitable for mosaic are as follows: "Colorado_nat_guard_arrive_ludlow_strike", Ludlow_teny_colony_group_shot", "Lt._Karl_Linderfelt_on_horseback_near_Ludlow,_1914", and "General_offices_and_works_of_Colorado_Fuel_&_Iron_Co._at_Minnequa,_Colorado". Please include or exclude images as you see fit. In the interim, I will integrate the image changes I can do. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the hypothermia matter, Thomas (and I believe Martelle) described the colony's destruction as preceding the deaths. Further, and I'll have to relocate the book, I believe that Thomas mentions hypothermia explicitly after quoting "exposure," so I wanted to keep the original description while providing the modern definition. As for the posing matter, you're right on with that.


 * "Jailing," on the other hand, is not a matter of conviction. Indeed, "jails" are often distinguished from "prisons" as the former contains non-convict residents while the latter can contain both. In despotic settings, many political opponents can be "jailed" (as in, kept in actual jail cells; this was the case for Mother Jones). "Detainment," at least in modern American parlance, seems to be distinct from an arrest and detention in a jail cell. False imprisonment would be improper for NPOV reasons; I would reasonably contend that, weighing the merits of Mother Jones's rhetoric and involvement in organizing several riots, she was arrested for actual crimes (whether the National Guard had the legal capacity to effect those arrests is a separate argument). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll take care of the cropping, that's quite easy. I can prepare a mixed picture.  Just to be clear from my side, this (ie the mosiac picture) is not in my opinion an issue for/against the GA assessment, but if we can do it now, I think worthwhile.  On the issue of "jail" - this is a product of US English, but a jail (gaol!) in most British English environs is a place of ongoing detention and also a place where person on remand can be held.  I'm aware in the US there are different types of jails, but the point here is the caption is ambiguous to my reading because "jailed" follows "arrested"; if there were no convictions, her ongoing detention was unlawful.  I think the problem boils down to a difference in US and British English usage: Merriam-Webster v Cambridge. Still, I think it would be better to try to remove the ambiguity with an alternative (eg instead of "arrested and jailed" perhaps "repeatedly detained for extended periods by the National Guard"). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm going to stop editing this for now and wait for responses to the points raised in these two sections. Ping me when you finish or if you need any clarifications. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary: Infobox template
Just noticing this now; the infobox is generated using, whereas I think is more appropriate (and this would make it consistent with what is used at Ludlow Massacre). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi! Sorry I haven't done much with the page over the last few days; personal life got hectic. I wanted to just ask if you think that the infobox is a major component? I want to delete the word "Southern" from the title of the infobox but find it to be a useful infobox otherwise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise given the time I've taken! :) I've made the change myself now; let me know what you think (I fixed the caption for the photo and moved "Southern" from the title to the location). My main concern is I don't think the subtitles in the military conflict template are appropriate (especially commanders - really inappropriate for trade unions, but also belligerents misconstrues the nature of the conflict, ie its origins are industrial in nature, not military).  Also, I'm uncomfortable with the use of  with Louis Tikas; most sources describe his death as murder.  Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tending to the infobox. I just substituted for  as the murder seems to fit that criteria. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, just a very gentle nudge, are you moving forward with this? No need to hurry, as I took my time to get the ball rolling, but if you are pausing would be helpful to know. Regards Goldsztajn (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi sorry . I will require a break until midweek (~14 July). I've only been able to do some gnoming edits off my phone for the last week and will be in a similar set-up for a few days more. Expect serious work and responses by Wednesday. Otherwise, please ping. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , No problems at all and thank you for the quick reply, regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Working through
Hey! I've done some significant editing to this page since you last went over it and I wanted to have some closure on this GA review by the end this month (or early next month!). Let me know what help I can render. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I can see most of the issues related to images above have been addressed, but what about the references? Can you indicate which ones have been addressed, please? --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To quote the infamous sign on that aircraft carrier: Mission Accomplished. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response ....you know, that sign did not auger well... LOL. Goldsztajn (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's to beating expectations, haha. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to pester, but today and tomorrow are excellent days for me to respond to any points you may have. I'll be able to look other days, too, but wanted to offer more immediate responses over the next 48 hours as a courtesy (considering I've been lazy otherwise). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll try to leave further comments in the next 24 hours. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother once more, but this weekend also provides an opportune time for me to help with any edits you suggest! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * Hi very sorry for the extended delay.  I'll be adding comments per section.  Starting with the beginning and the end.

Lead
My view here is the length is somewhat short given the length of the article and there is an imbalance of information which is important..
 * The term "poor working conditions" is an understatement, if not the most deadly working conditions at that time in the US, then amongst the worst!
 * The sentence "While the entirety of the strike-related violence is also commonly called the "Colorado Coal War" and the "Colorado Civil War," some historians use these terms only to refer to the final ten days of intense fighting at the end of April" can be converted to a note connected to the title.
 * "An estimated 69 to 199 people died during the strike,[7] though far fewer are officially recorded being killed by the fighting by both the local government and contemporary news reports." Would suggest something like: "Estimates of the number of people killed during the strike vary (between 69 and 199), with contemporary historical research pointing to numbers significantly higher than recognized at the time of the conflict."
 * Some themes missing or underplayed in the lead which should be included: largely migrant labour force (Greek, Welsh, Balkan), industrial context to the conflict (long standing resistance from the owners to union recognition or negotiations, failure of earlier strikes, previous violence in mine disputes which led to workers taking arms), national outcry over the massacre, Presidential intervention and use of the Insurrection Act (underplayed in present text), legacy (lost the battle, won the war?).
 * I'll discuss this further in another comment shortly, but what is unusual about this conflict is the "evenness" (if you will) of the violence - there was active armed resistance over an extended period from workers, and if the massacre itself is seen as a separate event, overall it appears that deaths of workers and the owners' proxies were roughly similar. This stands in significant contrast to most other violent conflicts in US labor history, where it is workers who disproportionately suffer. This is one of Thomas Andrews' main points in Killing for Coal and something highlighted by in James Green's review of this and other texts on the Coalfield War.

Legacy section
This is somewhat mixed containing elements which have great degrees of variance in significance.
 * The mention of Guthrie and Sinclair is significant and noteworthy but I don't see Hayes' song as part of legacy, it was written during the strike (I would move it to sections above). It is significant though that Hayes later went into Colorado politics and worth mentioning.
 * The fact that this subject has the attention of academic researchers is not a legacy. (Describing Howard Zinn as "controversial" is use of WP:Weasel). I would drop this whole paragraph. The reference to Mary Thomas O'Neal is the first time she appears in the article, but she should be included in the sections dealing with the massacre and aftermath.  Her article has material which could be used.
 * I would make the Ludlow monument a subsection itself (ie ====Ludlow monument==== ). The text needs some copyediting and shortening.  The picture of the monument is excellent, I would drop the text about the vandalism from the paragraph, shorten and add to the caption.
 * The last paragraph is WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT, perhaps if a newspaper of record, eg the New York Times, had carried such an editorial it might be noteworthy. Should be dropped.
 * However, what's missing here and what most studies mention is the historical impact of the strike. Walker provides a good summary: "Although the miners lost the Colorado strike, it was and still is seen as a victory in a broad sense for the union, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) (Foner 1980; Fox 1990). The Coal War was a shocking event, one that galvanized U.S. public opinion, turned John D. Rockefeller, Jr., into a national villain, and eventually came to symbolize the wave of industrial violence that led to the "progressive" era reforms in labor relations (Adams 1966; Gitelman 1988; Crawford 1995). Coal miners in Colorado did ultimately see some material gains."

Let me know what you think. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Again
I apologize for not getting back to you immediately. Expect a work-through on your comments at some point today. Events in my private life led to the dearth of activity on this site during the last month but will hopefully be followed by a period of renewed vigor. Having read through your recommendations and comments, I’ll post a response to some of them here once I’ve implemented the most necessary and the most easily added portions to the article. Thanks again ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I created this Colorado Coalfield War map.svg for use in the article, let me know what you think. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, man. Thank you so much. This is incredible. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it! I need to do a little more work on it, should have the final version ready by the end of the weekend and then next week hope to get through the final round of comments on the text. Thanks again for all your patience.  Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi : I'm effectively calling it here. I am asking for a final assessment on this GA nomination in the next two weeks and will be available to respond to comments within the next five days. After that, I will leave this article unadjusted until new sources or updates become relevant. Thanks for your hard work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

After another round of edits, please look into this GA review. I would like to have this completed by November. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll be able to get to this after Wednesday and before the weekend. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, is there anything I can do to help you with the final steps of this? Best ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing
Hi, sorry this is taking me longer than I expected, but unfortunately, I'm coming up with some concerns about sourcing. So far, looking at one source I've found four of six references are significant misrepresentations, making statements not supported by the source.

Sourcing: West
Please don't do any more editing for the moment, I need to do more source checking. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you so very much for your intense review of the sourcing! Where would you prefer I submit alterations to the text body or additional sources that fill in the holes? I can recall for certain a couple instances where I appear to have just neglected to supplement an additional source that corresponds with the issues you pointed out. Thanks again and just give me a semblance of what timeline you want those revisions in by. Thanks ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi this is a bit complicated.  I've added my analysis of the use of "Killing for Coal" below; there's similar problems regarding interpretation and use of the source. I'm sorry about this but I'm finding problems with almost every reference. While there are issues of error (such as the the Mother Jones quote) which can be corrected easily, I'm seeing a larger number of issues related to how material has been selected and used.  I'd like to go through "Blood Passion" and the "The Great Coalfield War" before drawing any further conclusions. If you can hold off editing the main body, I have some time coming up that I can work on it over the next few days. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Take your time, . Glad you're catching stuff. The Mother Jones quote puzzles me, as I distinctly recall another source referring it as exclusively her quote (though wonder why I only added the Andrewes citation; more worrisome, since then other websites seem to have copied my possibly erroneous quoting). I'll do a complete once-over of you comments and questions when you've completed your review and probably do that on a draft page so I don't disturb the stability of the public article. Let me know if you need access to some of the material not online; I have photos of the texts of some of the material not yet digitalized that I cite. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing: Andrews
This is my check on the Thomas Andrew's text. As the text is not public domain, I'm more limited with direct quoting from the source. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Goldsztajn @Pbritti I wanted to thank you both for your work on this article. As Jalsing88 I did some work back on 2015 on this family of articles and I am so happy to see where they are now. I have a copy of the source listed above and would be happy to contribute to fixing the issues notes, but I don't want to step on any toes. Delphinium1 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delphinium1, given that both Goldsztajn and Pbritti have edited since your post and neither has objected, I'd say to go ahead. This review is now over nine months old, and anything that gets it closer to completion is welcome. Thank you for offering. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for the ping. I have actually been pondering this review for the last four weeks and how to go forward, but RL got in the way. The problems are more than simple errors, there are repeated instances of the sources being misconstrued.  Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that I will need to close the review. The sourcing issues above make it clear to me that an extensive textual check of Martelle's Blood Passion and McGovern & Guttridge's Coalfield War is utterly necessary.  There are sixty-one citations to both texts, the review has already become very cumbersome and will only become more so. Further, Martelle is not a professional historian, he has presented some views which are not part of academic consensus on the subject and I have some concerns about the overuse of his work here. With the nature of the check required and further issues around tone and weighting, I'd like to suggest that I quickly close the review and that if you are willing, along with, we collectively rework the article for a new submission.  Let me know your thoughts, regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * if you've no objections, I'll close this in 72 hours. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding abrasive, I am disappointed in the review process exercised here. After waiting more than seven months for substantial comments, in October this year you performed some productive review but asked me to refrain from improving the article further. Besides the most readily and easily changeable errors, I complied with that request. Now, you level several complaints that you say merit closure of the review. Whether these complaints are valid is actively debatable–and something I would rather discuss on my or the article's talk page for the sake of closing this review–and the closure of this review for any reason concludes a rather empty exercise. From nomination to now, it has been nearly a year. I repeatedly requested comments and that the review be completed, often to promises that it would occur within a week. These proved false. Life gets in the way. Please, for the sake of someone who worked very hard and wished for prompt, informational correction and commentary, pass off reviews if they prove too cumbersome. Thank you for the citation comments you provided in August and October, for they are actionable. Otherwise, I must say that I am very disappointed in this how this played out and the fact that I have now waited two years for a thorough review. If you require any more, let me know. Thank you ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with @Pbritti here. It is evident how much work you have put into the GA review but I held of on fixing many of the errors noted about the sourcing from "Killing for Coal" due to the note to hold off in October. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delphinium1 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, due to the failure to sign the previous post, the pings did not go through. Pinging nominator Pbritti, reviewer Goldsztajn, and editor Delphinium1. At this point, the most recent edit to the article by any of these three is Pbritti's edit on November 8. Goldsztajn, the ball is in your court: you were pinged by Pbritti on December 10, over two weeks ago, your "hold off" request remains in place two months later, and the review itself will have been open nine months this Saturday. In courtesy, you should post here the next time you are online and editing. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * perhaps as an uninvolved (semi?) observer you might comment. I'm somewhat torn here - there are substantial problems with sourcing which require are more than simple correctives ("fixing errors"), entire sections of sources are misconstrued (as demonstrated in the tables above).  I'm uncomfortable proceeding without, at the very least, a complete source check of the outstanding two sources used substantially in the article.  What seems to me the best way to address the problem is to close the review and myself and the two other editors work towards getting the article ready for a re-submission.   and  have rejected this, but I feel the level of work now required is moving beyond what I can do in the short term (ie next two or three weeks) given I'm at the point where I'm reluctant to assume that the sourcing does not repeat the problems already revealed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Goldsztajn, I took a look at the previous review, Talk:Colorado Coalfield War/GA1, and it appears that there were sourcing issues raised there as well, both the first and the second passes by the reviewer, such that the nomination ultimately failed. If the problems you are finding with the sourcing are of the sort and severity as those found in that first GA review, and you feel you cannot trust the article's accuracy in representing the cited sources based on the article's current condition, it may be that the best thing is to fail the nomination. I can, however, certainly understand Pbritti's disappointment and frustration given the excessively long wait to get action and attention on the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just placed an order for the two texts that need checking (Martelle's Blood Passion and McGovern & Guttridge's Coalfield War), once they arrive I'll make an initial survey and determine whether or not to continue. As soon as I get a delivery date, I'll be able to post an expected working time frame (probably around four weeks from now to complete the initial review). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Deeply appreciative, . Happy New Year. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing: Martelle
I've checked all 26 references to Martelle's "Blood Passion" in the article. Unfortunately, I find only seven references which unambiguously match the source, more than 70% of the sourcing to Martelle's text has problems, misconstrues information or takes out of context information presented. To my reading there is a repeated, somewhat subtle tendency to play down violence or actions committed by the militia forces as translated from source to article text. This is a problem with the previous two sources already analysed. The McGovern/Guttridge text is referenced 36 times in the article, I'll try to get through 10-15 references in the next week and make a final assessment. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * woah sorry for the late response. Thank you so very much for your hard work here and the review of the source. While I want to move forward with this review, I may only be able to incrementally implement some of these points and corrections to mistakes I made. If you would want me to wait to fix/remove/amplify some of these citations, let me know. I'll reread to see if there is a "play down" of certain acts of violence by the militia, though I am somewhat humorously surprised considering I was worried I had done the inverse out of my personal sympathies with the strikers. Again, thank you so much for your vigorous review that deserves commendation here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Status query
Goldsztajn, I was wondering whether you thought you'd be able to wrap up your review shortly. In two weeks, the review will have been open for a full year; I'm hoping that it can be completed before reaching that milestone. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This review has taken 366 days thus far, despite multiple attempts to revive it. I request to have it closed immediately as failed barring any objection. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pbritti, it is certainly your prerogative to withdraw the nomination at any time, which amounts to having it failed. (See the final paragraph of WP:GAN/I.) It's up to you whether you wish to allow Goldsztajn 24 or 48 hours (or longer) to register an objection, but at this point I do think closing is best.
 * Before you renominate, it is crucial that you address all of the issues with the article not accurately representing the sources it is based on, given that both GA reviews have foundered on extensively failing verifiability in this manner. At this point, I believe that nothing less than you verifying that the article text agrees with what is in each and every source cited for that text will be sufficient. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Both Goldsztajn and Pbritti have edited since Pbritti's post above, so as over 48 hours have passed since my last post, and it's been over two weeks since I first pinged Goldsztajn without any response, I am now closing this review over a year after it was opened as unsuccessful per Pbritti's request. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)