Talk:1985–1987 Watsonville Cannery strike/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 17:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Review

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Layout complies with MOS:LAYOUT and makes sense.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The citations are impeccable, and given repeated usage of same books, the source section along with references is really handy.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The entire article is rather in depth and almost too detailed, but always relevant, and the lede itself does nice job of capturing the most essential elements, without needing to read entire article either.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   With major claims, for example that the Local was a company union, or that it's a significant strike, were provided by evidence, and appropriate quotations.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images used, so not relevant

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well done!

It is rare for me to speedily pass a GA, but this article is incredibly well written, and goes through the pain of noting even the slightest variations in reporting. Not only do I think this is a Good Article, but I believe this could become a Featured Article as well. I found some cases where wiki links would have been useful, and went ahead and directly added them myself. I did note that Latino/Latina are used interchangeably, unclear if intentional or not. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe the vast majority of sources are books, which I admittedly don't have local/digital copies available of, however, I've done spot checks of the more contentious claims, for example that Teamsters made 'sweetheart' deals that preserved status quo, is confirmed in the sources indicated, namely page 445 of This book and Teamsters made sweetheart deals to undercut UFW in page 220 (and also 228).

Not required for GA, but nice would be if Moody's 1998 book had specific pages listed when sourced. I have a copy of the ebook "An Injury to All", so I plan on listing the specific pages (if any) for each claim. I hope that satisfies your concern that a sourcing check has been done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)