Talk:Lowell mill girls

message: 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)
thread_title: Major revision

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: tintype?? 1840s??

message: 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Talk | Contribs 13:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: This page has been moved three times in the past two days. Can we please not move it again until we can find a consensus on what to call it? I don't have a strong preference myself, but it's not healthy for us to be moving it around and around like this. Thanks. – Scartol · Talk 22:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for moving this article. I am new, but this is now the best title.--durno11 11:23 30 September 2007  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Name 

message: I noticed throughout this article it refers to them as "female textile workers", yet in publications posted by the girls, they refer to themselves as the "Mill Girls" or "Lowell Mill Girls".  Why is the phrase "female textile workers" used instead?207.216.235.240 (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "female textile workers" 

message: I found the article very informative and easy to read. I was reading the questions though and wanted to echo why they are called female textile workers rather than mill girls as they called themselves. Chello540 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the term female textile workers was meant to make the language less repetitive within the article, or is an artifact of the former title of the article; but at the very least it would be valuable for the current article to address how, when, and why the women called themselves mill girls in the 19th century. Clio.at.work (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  lowell mill girls 

message: Given that the article is missing several citations, it is ripe for a good article reassessment. I'd like to nominate it, but if there are any editors watching this page that want to improve it ahead of a reassessment, this is your chance. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA reassessment coming