Revision as of 13:37, 16 September 2007 editScartol (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,871 edits GA nom← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:26, 17 September 2007 edit undoPursey (talk | contribs)1,474 edits Tagging GANext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{GA|oldid=155104001|topic=History}} | |||
{{GAnominee|2007-09-16}} | |||
{{LabourProject | {{LabourProject | ||
| class= B | | class= B | ||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
:Man, I'm having more trouble with this one image. I can't find where I got the 1870s date from. I think it's possible that I confused it with an image from , which lists as being from 1860; but the book ''The Lowell Offering'' (ed. by Benita Eisler) lists this alternative image as "c.1865-1870". Sorry for the confusion! If anyone gets a firm date on the actual picture in question, please dish! — ] · ] 21:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | :Man, I'm having more trouble with this one image. I can't find where I got the 1870s date from. I think it's possible that I confused it with an image from , which lists as being from 1860; but the book ''The Lowell Offering'' (ed. by Benita Eisler) lists this alternative image as "c.1865-1870". Sorry for the confusion! If anyone gets a firm date on the actual picture in question, please dish! — ] · ] 21:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
== GA Review == | |||
Hello, | |||
I've now completed this article's review for promotion to Good Article Status. | |||
First of all, I'd like to congratulate the editors of this article, in particular, Scartol, for the excellent work put into the rewrite of this article, and its inclusion on DYK recently. Clearly, a lot of work went into finding references and accurate information for this article, and the article is far more readable now. | |||
The article meets the Prose and Manual of Style requirements, and I love seeing articles like this so well written. Sometimes, most of the focus on Misplaced Pages appears to be on newer events, items, and people. I'm glad people are working on the historical stuff too. | |||
As mentioned, the article is well referenced. All images are used in accordance with the Misplaced Pages Image Policies. The article is stable and written from a Neutral Point of View. Overall, I'm passing this article, since it meets all the Good Article Criteria. | |||
Congratulations, and keep up all the hard work. ''']''' <sup>] | ]</sup> 13:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:26, 17 September 2007
Lowell mill girls has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. (Reviewed version). |
Organized Labour B‑class | ||||||||||
|
A fact from Lowell mill girls appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 August 2007. A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2007/August. |
Having just finished a major revision of this page, I apologize in advance if any of the previous authors/editors feel slighted that I removed their content or references. Much of the previously-existing information was unsourced, poorly sourced, contradictory, or a combination of these. Hopefully the new article can provide a stable foundation from which to proceed. — Scartol · Talk 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
tintype?? 1840s??
I am wondering about the dating of the wonderful picture of the two factory girls that accompanies this article. Can the 1840 date be confirmed somehow? It is identified as a tintype, a process that was not invented until the 1850s. Also the hairstyles and boots are giving rise to some questions. 207.69.137.36 12:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't know why I put 1840s into the date comment field when I first uploaded it. The date in the Summary (c. 1870) is accurate. As for confirmation, I can't help you; it came from this website, which got it from the Lowell Historical Society. — Scartol · Talk 20:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's hold on! Was that the answer of someone who knows? I have written around and have a credible answer of 1850s now, but even that is not definitive! May I ask what your source is for 1870s? Amity150 14:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Man, I'm having more trouble with this one image. I can't find where I got the 1870s date from. I think it's possible that I confused it with an image from this page, which lists a different tintype as being from 1860; but the book The Lowell Offering (ed. by Benita Eisler) lists this alternative image as "c.1865-1870". Sorry for the confusion! If anyone gets a firm date on the actual picture in question, please dish! — Scartol · Talk 21:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
GA Review
Hello,
I've now completed this article's review for promotion to Good Article Status.
First of all, I'd like to congratulate the editors of this article, in particular, Scartol, for the excellent work put into the rewrite of this article, and its inclusion on DYK recently. Clearly, a lot of work went into finding references and accurate information for this article, and the article is far more readable now.
The article meets the Prose and Manual of Style requirements, and I love seeing articles like this so well written. Sometimes, most of the focus on Misplaced Pages appears to be on newer events, items, and people. I'm glad people are working on the historical stuff too.
As mentioned, the article is well referenced. All images are used in accordance with the Misplaced Pages Image Policies. The article is stable and written from a Neutral Point of View. Overall, I'm passing this article, since it meets all the Good Article Criteria.
Congratulations, and keep up all the hard work. Pursey 13:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Categories: