Talk:Cone Mills Corporation/GA2

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

Reviewer: Mikehawk10 (talk · contribs) 05:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Mikehawk10
I'll take a look through this article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Upon taking a quick look through, I found that the first sentence in this article is a potential copyvio of this page, though I'm potentially concerned that the page I've found is actually just plagiarizing Wikipedia without providing attribution. Is there a way to figure this out?


 * Yes, those are my words that the website is using from me. That wording I happened to have used back in 2008 as I look back on the history. My wording then was, Cone Mills Corporation was a world leader in textile manufacturing of corduroy, flannel, denim and other cotton fabrics for most of the twentieth century. The company was based in Greensboro, North Carolina. I happen to use Earwig vio-detection a lot and my goal in writing articles is to keep it under 10%. Often I am at 2% or below. Check out all my 500 DYK articles to verify this. AND my 160 Good Articles as represented by the green icons on my User Page.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The first two earwig high numbers are just advertisers to sell their products, not reference websites.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been 3 weeks since you started this review. I'm ready to continue. Hope all is going well for you.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You may have seen this but hasn't edited since 4 July.  JBchrch   talk  11:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hope they're okay. Unfortunately they left several GA reviews in limbo: Talk:Sunshine & Health/GA1, Talk:Carlo Leone/GA1, Talk:United States v. McMahon/GA1. Only the latter has non-trivial content. Not sure at what point we can reasonably call these abandoned and open them back up for someone else to review. Colin M (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

New reviewer needed
I've changed the status of this nomination to "second opinion" in the hopes that a new reviewer can be found that way, since Mikehawk10 has abandoned this one. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that the article just isn't ready. A quick look at the sourcing and at Google Books shows that there is a lot more to be said about the company's size and power, and its policies towards its workers--not to mention its Black workers. I just read that it was the fourth largest cotton manufacturing plant in the country, and that's not in the article. Worse, Cone Mills (see this book) was at the heart of labor unrest in the 1970s, it already set up machine guns during a strike in the 1930s, it was sued by the EPA for environmental problems (that's all in the Love and Revolution book). And there was a huge strike in 1951. There was labor unrest in 1938. And on the note of company town and paternalism, in combination with labor unrest, there's this article, and there's a ton more that I'm looking at in JSTOR, many of them about the mill villages and the workers--so I just don't think one can say the article has "broad coverage". Drmies (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The nomination was withdrawn by Doug Coldwell about an hour ago, so no further review or reviewer is needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)