Talk:IBM and unions/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

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 1.0% in similarity.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable. There has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • Lede: Change "there are several trade unions recognized by IBM, with limited recognition" to "there are several trade unions that have limited recognition by IBM".
  • Lenovo, not Lenevo.
  • No problems were found in the rest of the article.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Change the short description to "Relationship between IBM and trade unions", the current short description "Worker organization" is not a concise explanation of the scope of the article.
  • The opening sentence does not make sense, I am pretty sure that it is supposed to say "Trade unions have not historically been recognized by IBM". Bolding won't be needed in this case.
  • The lede does not provide a summary of the article.
  • There is inconsistency in numbers: there is 3,500 with a comma and 1000 does not have one.
  • Article currently stands at 12k bytes so it should have one or two paragraphs.
  • Change "External" to "External links".
  • The article complies with the MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, and MOS:EMBED guidelines. There is no fiction here, so I am skipping MOS:WAF.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • Reference section (notes and references split) with proper templates is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • Ref 1 and 18 are missing pages.
  • There are problems:
    • Notes are unsourced.
    • Ref 2 is not open access, it requires an account to see the content.
    • Ref 19 (Medium) is a blog hosting service and per WP:RSP it is considered generally unreliable. The author does not appear to be a subject-matter expert. Crossed per comment below.
    • Other references are reliable.
  • Spotchecked Ref 1, 3. See comments below
    • Ref 1 mentions IBM, but there are no mentions of Germany and Australia.
    • Ref 9 clearly specifies that protests in Guangdong happened during that period or earlier than that. So, change "The strike is part of" to "The strike was part of".
    • Ref 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 20, 21, 23 verify the cited content.
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • The lede will have to be expanded and re-written so that it provides a summary of the article.
  • Australia: Do we know what happened after the two 48-hour strike actions?
  • China: Do we know what happened after the wildcat strike in Shenzhen?
  • The article stays focused on the topic, though some context is missing as I've stated above.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, there has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• Checking images.
  • There are no images in the article but it would be good to add one in the future.

Final comments

@Shushugah: There is a lot of stuff to fix and you're already reviewing a long article of mine so I'll put the article on hold for a week. If you want, I can quick-fail this and when you fix the issues that I've pointed out in the future, you can ask me on my talk page to review it again. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Driveby comment: the Medium ref is to OneZero, a news site hosted on Medium, which does have editorial control. There are a couple of these, so it's important to double-check where something with a Medium url is coming from. No comment on the rest of the review (which seems good on the merits), just that this is something that comes up pretty often. Vaticidalprophet 21:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for pointing that out! Vacant0 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

A week has passed so I'll look at where the article currently stands:

• The article was last edited on 5 August.
• During this one-week period some changes were made: the article now meets the 1a criteria, some MOS corrections were made, and references were added to the notes.
• However:
  • The lede still does not summarise the article. First, the content from the lede should be moved to the body instead. Then, the lede should be rewritten in order to summarise the whole article.
  • Ref 1 and 21 (previously ref 18) are still missing pages.
  • Ref 2 is not open access so I cannot verify the content.
  • Most of what I spot-checked is fine but there are still some issues that I've noted above.
  • Lastly, in the article we do not know what happened after the actions in Australia and China.
• This article, for now, fails the GA criteria. The nominator should address these issues first before re-nominating the article for another GA review. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2023 (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.