Talk:Fagoppositionens Sammenslutning/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 20:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Would like to review this. Will probably get started later this afternoon.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Initial readthrough

Copyvio check looks good. Image looks good. Might be good to include alt text (see MOS:ALT) but not a prerequisite for GA status. Made a few small tweaks myself. This article looks pretty good already, but just a few minor points:

• By the end of the war, the FS had reached its peak with 3,000 members; its members participated in the storming of the Stock Exchange, secured the eight-hour working day and the weekend, and contributed to the reduction of unemployment. — Unless this is referring to a specific reduction in unemployment (like "the employment boom of 19XX" or something), this should probably just say "...contributed to a reduction in unemployment." Spookyaki (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Good point. Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Y
• The material conditions brought on by the war caused a substantial growth in the syndicalist movement, as the Danish working classes were radicalised by the perceived failure of the social democrats. — Would it be possible to expand on what those material conditions were? If so, please do. Spookyaki (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • This is expanded on later in the paragraph, i.e. "As the war continued, wages declined and prices rose dramatically".
    • Got it. I wasn't sure if those were conditions that emerged later in the war or if they were caused by the start of the war. Y
• As the war continued, wages declined and prices rose dramatically, while social-democratic trade unions found themselves unable to negotiate with the constantly increasing cost of living. — Negotiate with who/what? Please clarify if possible. Spookyaki (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • It's regarding cost-of-living allowances. Basically whatever increases they were able to negotiate were outpaced by the rising cost of living. Tried to clarify. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Y
• However, the general strike was ultimately cancelled as negotiations for a compromise were carried out. — Was there something specific in the negotiations that caused them to cancel? Or did they just decide that negotiating was a better tactic? Please clarify if possible. Spookyaki (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The cited source just says "compromises" without further detail. It seems looking elsewhere, the king replaced his new prime minister with a more popular caretaker government and an election was held. This isn't directly relevant to the FS though, what is relevant is that the general strike was called off. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

    Fair enough. If there's not a lot of info about the negotiations themselves, this is probably fine. Spookyaki (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Y

• By this time, the FS had begun closely cooperating with the nascent Communist Party of Denmark (DKP). — Is it possible to get more specific per MOS:RELTIME? If not, this is fine. Spookyaki (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I think it's already clear from the previous paragraph and subsequent dates. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

    Yeah, it's probably fine. Probably shouldn't have challenged it. Spookyaki (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Y

• The Frederichsen source is not cited anywhere in the article. Should it be moved to "Further reading"? Spookyaki (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Whoops! I missed that. Added information from it now. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

    All good! New information looks to be in order. Spookyaki (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Y

Great work overall! Will start the spot check in a bit. Hope we can get this to GA soon. Spookyaki (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! And thanks for taking this on for review. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Second read, spot check

Okay, spot-check. Checked Damier, Greasley, Knudsen, Persson, Thing, and Thorpe. Notes on this read:

• ...made notable progress in increasing its trade union presence → ...increased its trade union presence (WP:NPOV) Spookyaki (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC) Y
  • Good catch. Neutralised. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• But the advancement of collective bargaining procedures by the social democrat-led unions, both among skilled and unskilled workers, caused difficulties for the growth of the FS. — I assume this is based on this section:

  The skilled crafts were devoted to collective bargaining and impervious to the alleged advantages of more militant procedures. The unskilled workers had also benefited from collective bargaining and were, moreover, staunch opponents of the industrial unionism advocated by the syndicalists.

  Do we know this is specifically referring to social-democratic unions? Spookyaki (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I guess that was just a misreading on my part. Rewritten to be in line with the source. Thanks! --Grnrchst (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

    I mean, it seems plausible that they were, but just didn't seem to be directly supported by the source. Looks good now. Spookyaki (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Y

• Attempts to gain a foothold in the provincial towns were also largely unsuccessful, with the FS mainly gaining members in Copenhagen. — The basis for this seems to be:

  In 1912 an attempt was made to gain a foothold in the major provincial towns, another tour was arranged in November 1914.

  Do we know they were unsuccessful? Spookyaki (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't know if saying they were "unsuccessful" is exactly correct, so I've removed that. We do know that most of their membership was in Copenhagen though. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

    I'll trust your judgment. This seems fine now. Spookyaki (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Y

Otherwise, looks good. Once these issues are addressed, I think I should be able to pass this. Thank you for your hard work! Spookyaki (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Spookyaki: Thanks again for taking this on! Your comments were very helpful. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Final read

Made a few minor ce adjustments myself, but overall, I think this is good to go.

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.