Talk:2021 Oregon Tech strike

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Steelkamp in topic GA Review

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 07:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply


Hello. I will be doing this good article review. I aim to complete the review within the next few days. If you would like to return the favour, I have several good article nominations right now, which you can find at WP:GAN. Steelkamp (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good article criteria

edit

  Well written

edit

  Verifiable with no original research

edit

  Broad in its coverage

edit
  • By April 28, the union was accusing the university of violating state law by not notifying temporary workers that they were acting as strikebreakers, though the university rejected that they had violated the state statute. – The situation appears to be a bit more complicated than that. I suggest you replace this with By April 28, the union was accusing the university of hiring an outside firm that was violating state law, though the university rejected that they had violated the state statute. The union said that Focus EduVation did not notify temporary workers that they were acting as strikebreakers. Steelkamp (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Maybe should be added that the union compromised on allowing merit based increases. Steelkamp (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Neutral

edit

  Stable

edit

  Illustrated, if possible

edit

General

edit

Well, I'm putting thit on hold now. This article is very impressive. I thoroughly checked every single reference and found nothing wrong. There is just two suggestions there for criterion three, which should be quite easy to address. Steelkamp (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Steelkamp, hey, just wanted to reach out to tell you that I made some edits to address some of your concerns in the GA review. Thank you again for starting this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please reach out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
This is all good to pass now. Good job on this. The only thing I would say if you wanted to improve it further is to put the reference numbers in order. For example, where it says [21][14], flip the references so that it says [14][21]. Steelkamp (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply