Jump to content

Talk:Dear White Staffers/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sammielh (talk · contribs) 16:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick up this review. Comments below. Sammielh (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Sammielh! I've left replies wherever I didn't do as asked :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied in a few places below but I'm happy to promote this to GA. Good work on the article! Sammielh (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead and infobox

[edit]
  • I would put when the account was created in the lead (e.g. "The account was created in ... primarily to post memes")
  • I don't have much experience with internet culture articles but would it be worth putting the actual Instagram handle in the lead?
  • Possibly too much detail for the lead, but I would be inclined to indicate who the account has received praise from (e.g. the national press)
  • Optional but could be worth updating the followers in the infobox
  • Appropriate fair use image

Background, reactions

[edit]
  • Person of color is linked in the body but not the lead
  • "Dear White Staffers recounted to Politico" I would possibly rephrase to distinguish the account manager from the account
  • "has been treated differently than white staffers by the Capitol Police"
  • I would amend "Staffers of color often feel that formal channels of complaint are not responsive to them for some negative experiences, such as frequent microaggressions" as I find it confusingly worded, it seems to imply that only some experiences are not being responded to which I think is different from the source
  • I would change "in the matter" as I don't think it's specific enough
  • The Bulwark is linked twice
  • There's some discrepancy over whether black is capitalised
  • I would consider nothing that the "Rooney rule" is not consistently followed, per the Politico source
  • I would link Capitol South station to Cap South (which is what I assume the post is referring to)
  • Quotes should have a reference immediately following them
    • I'll challenge you to provide a policy source on that? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I originally tried to find the policy source for this when I mentioned it and wasn't able to (no idea who told me this), so happy to drop this point. Sammielh (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Sammielh: I believe you're referring to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states that All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. While inline citations can be at the end of sentences, its also alright for them to be at the end of the paragraph. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be inclined to add in the years for the film and tv show of Dear White People for some context
    • I'm not sure it's necessary, it's just a loose reference.
  • I would put "By the end of January 2022" as it's a new section
  • "Politico referred to the stories reposted by the account"
  • Are there any account statistics or coverage from 2023?
    • No secondary stats that I'm aware of, no.

References

[edit]
  • The Earwig results come back with 29%, which is primarily due to the quotes in the article, although it does flag the phrase "code of silence" which should probably be rephrased
  • I didn't see any issues with the spotchecks