The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: Kept. This article appears to be in good shape, although one editor feels there is some bias, which I could not find myself. The article is well referenced, reads well and conforms sufficiently with the MoS. I removed a "weasel words" tag which had been placed on a quotation as I feel that tagging a quotation in this way is inappropriate. I also consolidated one stray sentence in the lead.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
17:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)reply
As one may see by viewing the article and its talk page, as well as external media coverage,
Haymarket affair fails to integrate current research regarding the matter. Start would be a more appropriate classification. Considerable work is needed.
User:Fred BauderTalk 14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
All of the questions raised in Timothy Messer-Kruse's blog
http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-2-no-evidence/ need to be addressed at a minimum, regardless of whether the sweeping assertions he claims to have proved, page 8 of his book, are accepted.
User:Fred BauderTalk14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)reply
It seems that some major changes have occurred since this was initiated
[1]. They appear to be addressing the issue that the nominator raised. Does this re-assessment need to continue?
AIRcorn(talk)02:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Improvements are mostly my work, much of which is reverted on sight. The article, which remains an embarrassment, is still being defended by a small crew of POV editors. It will take several months at the current rate to make substantial improvements. Spurious policy "reasons" to maintain the article in its current state continue to surface.
User:Fred BauderTalk14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The "small crew" is a half dozen or more. The "other side" is mainly, if not entirely, Fred. The most "embarrassing" part of the editing history is the attempt, in the name of improvement, to add 22,000 bytes of text based entirely on primary sources (trial transcripts) -- it is perfectly proper to revert such edits. The surest way to get the article delisted is to replace secondary sources with primary sources.
Tom (North Shoreman) (
talk)
16:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep listing Appears to meet the standards of GA from a casual read through. Note that GA requirement is not nearly as strict as a FA. Also, as Aircorn notes, recent objections have been largely addressed.
LK (
talk)
09:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep One of the requirements of GA's is that they are focused. Addition such as
this fall outside that criteria and have been correctly reverted. Since this review was opened it appears many of the concerns have been addressed. While there is certainly room for improvement nothing from my read through, admittedly as someone who knows very little about the topic, could be described as an embarrassment. As has been stated above the GA criteria are not that strict and in my opinion it meets those criteria. I would recommend keeping this as a good article and sorting out any further improvements at the talk page.
AIRcorn(talk)03:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: Kept. This article appears to be in good shape, although one editor feels there is some bias, which I could not find myself. The article is well referenced, reads well and conforms sufficiently with the MoS. I removed a "weasel words" tag which had been placed on a quotation as I feel that tagging a quotation in this way is inappropriate. I also consolidated one stray sentence in the lead.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
17:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)reply
As one may see by viewing the article and its talk page, as well as external media coverage,
Haymarket affair fails to integrate current research regarding the matter. Start would be a more appropriate classification. Considerable work is needed.
User:Fred BauderTalk 14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
All of the questions raised in Timothy Messer-Kruse's blog
http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-2-no-evidence/ need to be addressed at a minimum, regardless of whether the sweeping assertions he claims to have proved, page 8 of his book, are accepted.
User:Fred BauderTalk14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)reply
It seems that some major changes have occurred since this was initiated
[1]. They appear to be addressing the issue that the nominator raised. Does this re-assessment need to continue?
AIRcorn(talk)02:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Improvements are mostly my work, much of which is reverted on sight. The article, which remains an embarrassment, is still being defended by a small crew of POV editors. It will take several months at the current rate to make substantial improvements. Spurious policy "reasons" to maintain the article in its current state continue to surface.
User:Fred BauderTalk14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The "small crew" is a half dozen or more. The "other side" is mainly, if not entirely, Fred. The most "embarrassing" part of the editing history is the attempt, in the name of improvement, to add 22,000 bytes of text based entirely on primary sources (trial transcripts) -- it is perfectly proper to revert such edits. The surest way to get the article delisted is to replace secondary sources with primary sources.
Tom (North Shoreman) (
talk)
16:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep listing Appears to meet the standards of GA from a casual read through. Note that GA requirement is not nearly as strict as a FA. Also, as Aircorn notes, recent objections have been largely addressed.
LK (
talk)
09:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep One of the requirements of GA's is that they are focused. Addition such as
this fall outside that criteria and have been correctly reverted. Since this review was opened it appears many of the concerns have been addressed. While there is certainly room for improvement nothing from my read through, admittedly as someone who knows very little about the topic, could be described as an embarrassment. As has been stated above the GA criteria are not that strict and in my opinion it meets those criteria. I would recommend keeping this as a good article and sorting out any further improvements at the talk page.
AIRcorn(talk)03:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.