Talk:Roving Picket Movement

Untitled
Ethan Harris

Source #1: Black, Kate. “The Roving Picket Movement and the Appalachian Committee for Full Employment, 1959-1965: A Narrative.” Journal of the Appalachian Studies Association, vol. 2, 1990, pp. 110–127. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41445588.

Source #2: Cantrell, Doug. "Roving Pickets Oral History Project." The Kentucky Oral History Comission, 1987. http://passtheword.ky.gov/collection/roving-pickets-oral-history-project-0

Source #3: Nyden, Paul. “Coal Miners, ‘Their’ Union, and Capital.” Science & Society, vol. 34, no. 2, 1970, pp. 194–223. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40401480.

Source #4: Portelli, Alessandro. "Roving Pickets." They Say in Harlan County: An Oral History, 2011, pp. 270-280. Oxford University Press, https://books.google.com/books?id=JzicwS-Rik0C&dq=the+roving+pickets+movement

Source #5: United Press International. "I Roving Pickets from West Virginia Enter Other States to Shut Mines." The New York Times, 1977, http://www.nytimes.com/1977/08/16/archives/roving-pickets-from-west-virginia-enter-other-states-to-shut-mines.html

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ethan harris11, RebekahWhite, Ratcliffhn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments From Carter Nelson
I found the article to be very well written and to not be biased. I have done some google searches and haven't found any plagiarism, but would make sure that everything is cited to make sure their is no plagiarism. With that said everything that I could tell was properly cited and matched the article that it was attached to. I found a sentenced that needs some fixing or just a word added "Miners were unhappy with this, because it would to higher job-lose." I might change the legacy part up and have it just say legacy and remove antipoverty movement because to me it makes the legacy section look like its lacking content. Other than that the article looks really good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.249.56 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments From Luke Causby
This article seems very well written and includes good details about the Roving Rockets. I did not see any plagiarism in the article so at this point it looks like your group has a pretty good start so far. If I was to change anything about the article I would say maybe to trim down your paragraphs just a little. Other than that this article is great so far, good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.134.161.80 (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments From Bobby Bonhoff
The content of your article is good, however it seems a bit biased in favor of the miners. I would consider rewording some of the information to reflect objectively on the occurrences rather than the sentiments of the miners. P.s. Good job working links to other pages into your article. Bonhoffrm (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Joseph Taylor
I found this article to be informational and professional in presenting the research that the author found. Everything is linked properly. The only contextual thing I would like is more from the "Legacy" section, since it is a little short. I do not know if there is any information of current events branching from this topic, but if there is then it could go there. Overall, this is a well-rounded article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorjl8 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Jacob Arrington (Jarrington30)
I think that you guys are on a great start. I found way more good things than bad.

Good things I noticed: 1) There was a solid chronological format that was easy to follow. 2) You guys use great references to already written Wikipedia articles. 3) I believe the tone was good: not biased, just trying to state facts. Solid.

Some things that need improvement: 1) The "there" in the 4th line to the bottom of the background section should be changed to "their" 2) The legacy section should have some length added to it. If you don't want to extend the paragraph try making those legacy points toward the end of another paragraph. 3) I don't think it is bad but try to stray from using words of emphasis. For example, really or even. Just look over and make sure you aren't being too wordy. Our group got some points taken off for not making our points straightforward (dry and boring like Wikipedia prefers) too. 4) In the first sentence of the last paragraph change "Appalachian" to "Appalachia" to reference the entire area better. 5) Work on adding a little length to the first section. It gives a good idea already but maybe 2 to 3 more sentences would give an overall view. 6) Try not starting your Roving Pickets section paragraph with "Roving Pickets", it seems a little repetitive.

Jarrington30 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Jarrington30

Comments From BrightestTwilight
Good lead in section, nice and concise. The background section needs some proof reading and adjustments for flow and making sense. I was confused at first as to how it tied into coal or the topic at all. Formatting wise I think putting abbreviations in parentheses is standard after the phrase: Bituminous Coal Operators Association (BCOA). I could be wrong but it could help with the flow. In the Events section the flow is also off but this time it was because it seems to have started with the end and then worked its way back to the start. It would make more sense to have it set up more chronologically, I don’t know for sure but was this done to avoid close paraphrasing? The legacy section has good progression. For clarification you may want to state Washington, DC. I am from the West coast so I default to thinking of WA state, others may too. You need to cite the quote you used regarding the war on poverty. Overall the article has good information and an overall good setup. Seemed to be fact orientated and neutral in tone. BrightestTwilight (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Trey Williams
This is a very effective draft of your article. There are not any problems with tone or bias, as you are mainly only stating facts about the Roving Pickets. The organizational structure of the article is also good, however, the Legacy section really needs more content. Speaking on the specific impacts of the movements is necessary. There is no evidence of plagiarism or close paraphrasing of your sources, and the formatting of your citations seems good. One small grammatical error, you stated "Many workers lost there jobs..." and you should have used "their" instead of "there". Overall, however, this is a good article. Platowilliams (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hannah Mellon
Good work on your rough draft, however there are a few things you might want to touch on: - Put "The Roving Pickets" section above the table of contents to make it a lead section. Also add in information that touches on all the main points that will be covered in the article. - Citations should come after punctuation- this should be corrected in the background section of the page. -Make sure certain topics that might require previous knowledge are linked to their corresponding wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellonhe (talk • contribs) 15:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)