Talk:Workers' Federation of Chile/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) 15:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 17:04, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting nomination and near to meeting the Good Article criteria already. I will begin a review shortly as part of the Developing Countries WikiContest and Good Article review pledges. simongraham (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• First, some general comments.
• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of reasonable length, with 2,108 words of readable prose.
• The lead is reasonably short at 130 words.
• Authorship is 98.7% from the nominator with contributions from four other editors.
• GPTZero is highly confident this text is entirely human.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article and Rater predicts a score of 98%.
• There are some duplicate links, including skilled worker and Spanish
  • Trimmed identified duplicates. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text to the images for accessibility.
  • Added alt text. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Please review "Although unions were required to submit their employers with a petition and obtain the consent of the FTCh before going on strike, they were also required to immediately go on strike if their employers refused to uphold agreed-upon contract".
     • Edited. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
   • I believe there are fewer "e"s in "acceeded".
     • Corrected. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.
     • 25c is superfluous.
   • Trimmed. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
   • 39 and 40 reference the same source.
     • Merged. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Sources are mainly books and peer-reviewed journals published by reputable publishers.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • Spot checks:
     • 4 Angell 1972, pp. 16–17 confirms the port workers' union's foundation and collapse.
     • 12 DeShazo 1983, pp. 96–97 confirms the two strikes, although they are both listed on page 96.
       • Specified. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
     • 19 DeShazo 1983, p. 99 confirms the split and its consequences.
     • 25d DeShazo 1983, p. 108 states it was the "entire maestanza workforce had quit work" and "Maestanza workers throughout the central and southern zones of the State Railway adhered to the strike". Is this the same as "almost all of the company's workers in several cities ceasing work"
       • Rewording. I think it was my instinct to equivocate a bit, but obviously that's not helpful. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
     • 32 DeShazo 1983, p. 101 confirms the lack of political aspirations and goes further that the leaders were mainly anarchists.
       • Added detail. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
     • 40. DeShazo 1983, pp. 109–110 confirms the claims.
     • 45 DeShazo 1983, pp. 111–112 confirms the claims, but these are on page 112.
       • Specified. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
     • 53 Angell 1972, p. 17 confirms the claim but goes beyond it saying that the societies were "fleeting" and "called into being by protest".
       • I already mention this detail about the resistance societies in the "Background" section. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
     • 57b Gambone 1996, pp. 11–12 confirms the claim, although the statement is on page 11.
       • Specified. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
     • 61 DeShazo 1983, pp. 151–152 confirms the claim, saying that resistance societies appeared amongst the building trades, sailors, stevedores, bakers, print workers, shoe workers, tailors, glass makers, coopers and foundry workers, although I think the list in the article is sufficient to show the breadth of involvement.
       • Yes, I figured this would be too much detail for this article and would likely be better elaborated on the article about the IWW. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
     • Excellent work on these. simongraham (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 16.7% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is unlikely. The overlap is mainly proper nouns and titles.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article covers the history, activity and legacy of the movement well.
   • I suggest it may be worth expanding on the statement "As Chilean industry expanded and modernized, the resistance societies declined in strength", specially given the subsequent comment that "resistance societies slowly reorganized, with anarcho-syndicalists re-establishing a number of unions and leading strikes for higher wages during the early 1910s".
     • I added a bit of extra detail, but there's not much more in the source on this. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
       • That can be a challenge with topics like this. simongraham (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article balances the amount of detail required to make a meaningful article and the requirement for summary style well.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced and avoids biased judgements.
   • Suggest reviewing "Due to the decentralized structure of the federation, no one individual was able to dominate the labor movement."
     • Rewritten. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

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

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The images have appropriate PD tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are appropriate and help provide context for the article.
   • They have relevant captions.

@Grnrchst: Thank you for an interesting and well-written article. I can only see a few minor things before it can be promoted to being a Good Article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Ok, I think that's everything. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: Excellent work. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

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.