Talk:David Rolf/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: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 22:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   y

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer's Comments

Lead

• Did an edit of the LEAD myself, removing several pieces of content
• I'm not in love with the last paragrap and think a summary of the organizations Rolf supports rather than quotes would be better.

Early life and education

*Think this section might lean just a bit too heavily on quotes from Rolf. Solution would be to rely more on the reported/written part of the secondary sources rather than quotes/interviews.

I removed a quote and summarized three others. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Career

• I think part of the citation attached to his Georgia unionizing got deleted
  • I removed the first and last name parameters, but I am unable to find the AJC article "Miller tax plan hailed as good political move, but advocates for state programs had hoped for funding increases", even in HighBeam. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

*I believe the citation after walk precincts talking with other voters. should move to end of paragraph as it's what is sourcing those several sentences

• • I removed the unsourced content. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

*Should make clear that Rolf favored Prop 210

• • I added "passing". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

*an exemplar of the new American labour movement approach to politics, which aims to be worker- and issue-centered rather than candidate- and party-centered. Are those Walsh's words or someone else's?

• • I removed the quote as unnecessary detail, as well as the unsourced content. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

*Source for Rolf argued that these tactics allowed the local to hold candidates accountable to workers' interests more effectively than the standard route of donating to political candidates. and it also seems oddly placed there. Some more context would be helpful rather than just the quote.

• • See above. I just removed this unsourced addition. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

*Source for paragraph starting Rolf did not shy away from involving the local in politics, however.

• • I removed the unsourced content. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

*I removed a quote from the last paragraph of the LA section

• • OK! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Better transition is needed for first sentence of SEIU 775 and/or provide clearer timeline between LA and SEIU 775.
  • I'd assume this is a standard career change between the late 1990s and early 2000s. Perhaps change "Rolf later served in a number of other high-level roles at SEIU" to "After Local 434-B, Rolf held several executive roles at SEIU..." ? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I think either of those could work but something is called for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

*Can a neutral secondary source be found for This marked the first in a series of contract wins for Local 775 and added benefits for workers in the region.?

• • Removed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• While it can be inferred, can it be made explicit why SEIU disassociated from ALF-CIO?
• Doesn't seem like the source really justifies the Democratic threat part of threatening to take on established Democrats and endorsing Republican (also think this is a place where the quote is well deserved)

*Conversely I'm not sure that Our members do not care about Democrat vs. Republican. It's not the union's role to be a subsidiary of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party." adds anything unless it could be paraphrased and attributed to a secondary source

• • Paraphrased. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• What was the outcome of the 2008 lawsuit against Gregoire?
• Think that something went wrong with ^[44] about the Training Partnership

*Suggest striking guest column as not notable (in the general sense, not Wikipedia WP:N sense) and moving recognition by Obama/Biden to previous paragraph

• • Removed guest column and moved second sentence up. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)*
  • Can a secondary source be found for that recognition?
    •  Doing... Will try to find... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, a lot of the content you've asked to have removed was actually added by Freedom of the hills. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Career: $15 minimum wage (and subsequent subsections)

• Added summary sentence to start of $15 section

In late December 2013, Murray announced plans to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour, which he had pledged to do during his election campaign, earning him an endorsement from Local 775 of SEIU.

• This sentence is making three claims. The pledge/endorsement should be its own sentence earlier and sourced.
• Source for Dec 2013 plans?

*Reworked a sentence for clarity.

• • Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• I removed a sentence which talked about process. The fight for $15 was successful. This, and any subsequent role Rolf had in its passage, should be noted
• His book should have, at minimum, its own paragraph (1 sentence != a paragraph) if not its own subsection.
• I combined Portable benefits and Basic income sections into "Other benefits" section. Don't love the title if someone can think of a better one.
• Was the Medium post about portable benefits noteworthy? If not should be deleted. If yes linked to secondary source.

*Removed second mentioning of training school

• • Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Political positions and public image

• This section is a mess. Frankly, I think it should be deleted and anything noteworthy (which looks to be slim pickings) incorporated above.

Works

• Are these complete works or selected works?

Personal

• I notice there's no personal section which is normal in modern biographies. Is he married? Have kids? Anything else of note? Might not be enough to stand on its own but its absence is noticeable.

Other GA Criteria

• I see no COPYVIO issues
• All images follow GA standards

Sources

• "David Rolf: The man who would make unions matter again" no longer has a working URL. Believe [1] is correct URL
• In fact several sources links are dead. Can you see about fixing?
• I have access to several databases which have newspapers but can't find "Home-care union blended force, finesse to win gains". Will take on good faith if Another Believer, or other editor, will confirm the specific claims made are supported by this source (especially around numbers)

Discussion

Can Freedom of the hills or other editor confirm that they remain interested in going through the GA process? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I worked on this article a while back. I'm hoping User:Freedom of the hills is still interested, but if there's no confirmation soon, I can try to take on responding to article concerns if they're not overwhelming. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I've also posted a note at WikiProject Seattle, so perhaps someone else will express a willingness to help out. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I would love to work with an editor and appreciate your reaching out. I can tell from my skim-read of the article that there is going to be some NPOV type work to be done, which could be straightfoward or complicated depending on how it shakes out (and what happens when I look more at the sourcing). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Another Believer we meet again. I hadn't made the connection at St. Clair. I'm currently doing my detailed read of the article (which is why you saw me edit). More to come soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks!, and sorry for the confusion a moment ago. And thanks for being willing to make edits to the article directly. Often reviewers are like, "remove this comma", do this thing, etc., and especially since I did not nominate this article for Good status, your direct contributions are super helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I probably did some of that above but the GA review guidelines do instruct us to just do easy fixes ourselves which I try to take to heart and do while still honoring and deferring to "involved" editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this article. I will address concerns when I can. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Great. I have more parts of the article to read through which I will probably get to over the weekend. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I have finished my read through and struck the points above that I think have been addressed. Not surprised that nom was responsible for some of the NPOV content - I would expect a supporter to be more likely to make the effort at improving/writing the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thanks. I do have family in town, so please be patient as I try to address the remaining concerns. Keeping in mind I did not nominate this article for good status, I'd still like to see this article promoted to Good status, so I'll work to make further improvements as I have time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: no rush and thanks for your willingness to step up to the plate here. I do GA reviews because I think it benefits the community and be willing to respond to them when it's not your nom is definitely a contribution to the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: & @Another Believer:-- Sorry I missed the notification on this review last week! I'm here to assist if that's still helpful. This is my first major article edit, so pointers are most welcome if so. Freedom of the hills (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Freedom of the hills

@Freedom of the hills: No worries. Good to have you aboard. Another Believer has done a lot of the fixes here, but I think there is still some work to be done, especially in sources. I would take a look at what hasn't been struck through and start where you can. Additionally, feel free to comment on any of the previous discussion/suggestions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Freedom of the hills: Thanks for returning to help out! Yes, I've address some of the concerns, but feel free to work on the remaining. I'm happy to revisit again soon, too, once I'm a bit more available. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't revisited this because I assumed User:Freedom of the hills was taking over. Any update, FOTH? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Are you still interested in finishing the revisions? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I emailed Freedom of the hills again, but haven't seen an attempt to contribute to this discussion. @Barkeep49: I don't want you to think your time has been wasted, because I'd still like to see this article promoted in the future, and now I know what concerns need to be addressed. But, given the lack of collaboration by the nominating editor, I'd prefer to nominate this article on my own at a later date, if I'm going to be responsible for fixing all problems. I'll let you decide how long you want to give FOTH to reply. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: That is completely understandable and I appreciate the efforts you did put into this already. Given the length of time without any response, and given your preference to have time to make changes, I'm going to go ahead and fail the review. If/when you decide to renominate, if you'd like me to conduct the review feel free to put a note on my talk page and I will be happy to help. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you, and will do. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:22, 13 June 2018 (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.