Talk:1933 Funsten Nut strike

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:1933 Funsten Nut strike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: JJonahJackalope (talk · contribs) 01:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chao Garden (talk · contribs) 04:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @JJonahJackalope: I am reviewing this article. I expect to finish my review by the end of the week. Thank you! Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 04:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll be the experienced reviewer to oversight the review process as part of the June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Review

Hello @JJonahJackalope! It was a pleasure to read this article. Here's my review based on this version Special:Diff/1348942510:

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Clear and well-written
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with MOS
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Looks good
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Spot-check mostly look good, but I noticed some inconsistencies with the Bucki source, so I included more checks from that source. Could you take a look at the entries for Bucki below? Also had a question about the Gomberg p.91 citation, because I can't check it on Google Books myself, unfortunately. Y Zumoff p.363 [1-a] Y Foner p.270 [5-a] Y Fichtenbaum p.17 [9-c] Y Fichtenbaum p.19 [15] Y O'Shea 26-c Y Fichtenbaum p.40 [30-a] Y Gomberg p.91 [42-e] -- Can you provide a direct quote to support this? Page 91 is excluded from the Google Books preview, unfortunately. I'm not sure if it's an issue with our locations being different, but I am able to access Page 91, which states, "Several workers joined the CP". -JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC) Thank you, I found it by searching for that quote! Not sure why I couldn't find it earlier, sorry for the hassle. - Chao Garden Y Bucki p.177 [56-b] -- Is this citation incorrect? On page 177, I don't see any mention of the bargaining agreement; that page is about the civil rights movement. I clicked on the link and on Page 177 there is a sentence that reads, "Within 10 days, the company agreed to most demands, except for recognition of the union." This is present in the first paragraph on that page. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC) Thank you for the quote! This is such a weird situation... when I search for the quote directly, I find it: [] When I go directly to page 177, I see something different: [] I feel like this is something I'm doing wrong, in any case. Y Bucki p.177 [56-c] -- Is this citation meant to be pointing to a page from Feurer's book instead? The sentence starts with "Feurer notes that..." but this citation is for Bucki. The citation appears to be correct as is. On Page 177 there is a sentence (in the same paragraph as I noted above) that says, "In St. Louis, as historian Rosemary Feurer points out, this community activity and the success of the Food Workers Industrial Union laid the basis for the 1934 campaign for a local "Bill of Rights for Negroes" that presaged the postwar civil rights movement, but in this era the movement was based in the African American working class." -JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC) Thank you, same situation as above: I was able to find the page & confirm this using the quote. But when I tried to go directly to page 177, I was seeing totally different content (links are above). - Chao Garden Y Bucki p.176 [58] -- Again I'm not seeing anything about the cited sentence on this page of the Bucki source. Maybe this is a mistake? The figure of 1,400 is presented in the first sentence of the section labeled "African American and White Women Nutshellers in St. Louis" on Page 176. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC) Once again, I found the context (this time, searching "1,400" and it was the first result, page 176). But scrolling to page 176 is a totally different page: [] My mistake! (But also, Google Books is being really weird for me.) Y Feurer p.40 [60-a] Y Lang p.33 [70-a]
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig tool shows the Jacobin article from April 2023 has a 57.6% similarity (both the live article and the archive link). But almost all of these are quotes. A couple additional sources have up to 16% similarity, all due to quotes.  Done There's just one instance that isn't technically part of a quote or a title, from that 2023 Jacobin article: "White women worked on the first floor, while black women worked in the basement of some buildings and on the second floor of others. The bolded part appears in this article. Could you rephrase or quote directly? Rephrased this section. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yup, main points addressed
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes, written in summary style & focused on the topic
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image license are good: Y File:Pecan halves with centimeter scale.jpg is CC-BY-SA 4.0 Y File:St. Louis City Hall. View looking north toward the intersection of Tucker and Market Streets.jpg is Public Domain (over >100 years old in the US)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes, images and captions are relevant
	7. Overall assessment.	Article is well-written, comprehensive, and well-cited. Thank you for answering my questions so quickly. I'm happy to pass this as a Good Article.

I'm ready to approve this article once my comments are resolved above. But also, please note, because I am a newbie reviewer participating in Wikipedia:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/June_2026, I need to request that an experienced reviewer look at my review & provide feedback before I make my final decision. So for now, I'll put the review in an "on hold" status and try to find an experienced reviewer to take a look at my assessment above. And in the meantime, if you could reply to my comments (especially the Bucki source), that would be great. Thank you! Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 18:09, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@JJonahJackalope: Thank you so much for responding to my questions above. I've confirmed all of the spot-checks. The quotes you provided really helped... for some reason, that Bucki source shows different content for pages 176 and 177 when I scroll to the pages, but if I search for the quotes, I see the correct snippets in search. This is probably an issue on my end, honestly. I'll look into this more. But yeah, I think this article deserves to be promoted to GA! I'm going to post in the backlog drive Talk page to ask an experienced reviewer to check my work before I make the final approval. Thank you again for your patience & helping me resolve those questions so quickly. Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 00:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Excellent work Chao Garden. You have properly reviewed this against the six GA critieria, and I have no complaints. Well done.

Here's my abbreviated review:

• 1a, Y
• 1b, Y
• 2a, Y
• 2b, Y
• 2c, Y
• 2d, Y
• 3a, Y
• 3b, Y
• 4, Y
• 5, Y
• 6a, Y
• 6b, Y

The reviewer can action the close now. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:47, 7 June 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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Carrie Smith, a leader in the 1933 Funsten Nut strike in St. Louis, was known for picketing while holding a Bible in one hand and a brick in her other?

• Source: O'Shea 2023

• • ALT1: ... that the 1933 Funsten Nut strike was described in the magazine Jacobin as "one of the most successful labor actions of the Great Depression"? Source: O'Shea 2023
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sagar Iron Suspension Bridge Template:Did you know nominations/Diablo, Washington

Improved to Good Article status by JJonahJackalope (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 90 past nominations.

JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC).

• I will review this today. Yue🌙 (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Recently passed GA. Spot-checks on citations 46 to 50 done with no issues arising. Yue🌙 (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Use of "though"

"The house burned down, though they installed sprinklers"

- this means that the house had sprinklers but it still burned.

"They installed sprinklers, though the house burned down"

- this means that after the house already burned down, they went to install sprinklers. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Capitalization in lede

Lede uses terms "Black American" and "white American" capitalized as shown. I think the MOS says not to do that, to avoid the appearance of favoring one group of people over another. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Found it, MOS:WHITE; I think this specific instance is covered in that part of the guide. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)