Talk:2021 Nabisco strike

Untitled

This is a well researched and thought out article, it was comprehensive and easy to read.Petunialovescake1 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2021 Nabisco strike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HadesTTW (talk · contribs) 17:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I written a strike article over the past few weeks and I also remember the Nabisco strike happening back in 2021, so I'm definitely interested in this article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Prose is overall well written, it is a long article and complex but comprehensible and one can follow it along. Background section could perhaps be split into more paragraphs.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Needs layout changes. No "impact", or "aftermath" section that contextualizes and puts into perspective the results of the strike. "Politicians and celebrities voice their support" and "End of the strike" should both be separated from "Course of the strike", and a third section could probably be split from the other two sections to make them slightly shorter. "Background" section is unwieldy and needs to be more readable.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Everything seems to be sourced, couldn't find any unverified statements.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Sources are reliable, could not find fringe or irrelevant sources.

   c. (OR):

   No synthesis found from my perusal

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Everything is written or properly sourced, the plagiarism detector did not show any potential violations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Main aspects of the topic are adequately covered, could not find details from other sources that would need to be incorporated in the article.

   b. (focused):

   Details provided are relevant and topical.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article explains both the side of the strikers and Nabisco in due detail.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article has not been edited in months.

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):

   Could potentially a video, but what is provided does add context.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The two images provided do not illustrate enough for the article. Very few people are depicted in the second image and none are seen in the first. If free images can be provided of striking crowds or pickets with more descriptive demands, then they shoudl be added.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   The layout issues with this article need rectification- "Course of Strike" needs to be cut down and split into more sections, and "Background" needs to be broken up more. Besides that, it's a decent article and overall worthy of a GA.

Note that this is my first GA review, apologies if I am overlooking any major issues or not being detailed in my assessment. (Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments from Thebiguglyalien

Thanks for taking this on, HadesTTW, I'm always glad to see new reviewers. GA sometimes fails to support new reviewers as much as it could, so I took a quick look at the article and I have a few notes for the nominator and the reviewer to consider:

• I like to use CiteUnseen as a starting point to check sources. It's doesn't catch everything, but it helps the most obvious issues stand out. It's identified one unreliable source in International Business Times, and some questionable sources that should only be used for the most basic non-controversial facts (Vice, Salon.com, and Business Insider).
• The review says there's no synthesis, but it's often helpful to list which sources specifically were checked. Spotchecking a handful of sources is essential to make sure everything matches what's said in the article without directly copying or closely paraphrasing (plagiarism detectors will miss all but the most obvious instances).
• While media is helpful and recommended, there's no minimum requirement. What's important is that images used are relevant, well-captioned, and have valid copyright info on the image page.
• I agree with the reviewer's opinion that the sections should be altered a bit and would have said something similar if I were reviewing it, though it's not a high priority issue.

I'm also pinging JJonahJackalope to let them know this review is waiting for a response. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for the delayed response, I've been busy with irl things recently but will address the points raised in this review within the next few days! JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

HadesTTW, I just wanted to reach out to let you know that I made some edits to the article addressing some of the concerns you raised in your review! Sorry for the long delay, I've been dealing with some irl situations that have prevented me from doing a great deal of Wikipedia work, but I should be able to respond to any more requests you have. Thank you again for beginning this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please let me know! -JJonahJackalope (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Status query

HadesTTW, JJonahJackalope, where does this review stand? There doesn't seem to have been any action here or on the article in the past couple of months. It would be great to get this moving again. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

HadesTTW, JJonahJackalope, it has been over a month, and neither of you have responded here. The article itself hasn't been edited since May 18. If neither of you are interested, the thing to do is probably to close the review and the nomination. Thank you for your response this time. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello there,

I do believe that this article passes Good Article criteria now, apologies for the hangup. I'm going to change my overall score to Pass. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

HadesTTW, please note that changing the score doesn't actually pass the nomination. Please see the instructions at WP:GAN/I#PASS for how to complete your review as a pass. If you need help, please let me know. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that during the 2021 Nabisco strike, Kotaku published an article discussing the ethicalness of buying Pokémon-themed Oreos? Source: Kotaku
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mitch Love

Improved to Good Article status by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 19:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2021 Nabisco strike; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

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: Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)