Jump to content

Talk:Dear White Staffers

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

Sources

[edit]

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 10:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  • ALT2: ... that the creator of Dear White Staffers, one of few congressional aides of color, has been mistaken for a valet at events?
    -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. That's definitely hooky – I'm not sure I love that, though, because I do want the hook to be about the account and not the creator. Can't quite figure out how to meld the two, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hiya. The article was new enough at time of nomination (DYK nomination on 20 January, having been moved to the mainspace on the same day, and has not appeared on the Main Page) and is long enough (7773 characters of readable prose and is not a stub). The hooks are interesting, sourced, and formatted properly, though I think that a hook emphasising its origins as a meme account and linking that to its effect in the unions movement would be even more appealing. A quid pro quo was done. With regards to core content policies such as copyright, neutrality, and BLP, I did not detect any violations. However, there are some verifiability issues with the article. In addition, I have included suggestions that can make this article better – these are not DYK eligibility issues, but are given with the aim of (in addition to improving the encyclopaedia) helping with its GA nomination. I trust that you'll be able to classify to which set each comment belongs.
    • Background and history: "worked for sitting senators and representatives" doesn't seem to be supported by the POLITICO sources.
    • 2020–2022: "attributes a disproportionate amount of the blame in hiring disparities to Republicans" seems to imply that the blame being assigned is disproportionate to the statistics, when I think you're trying to say that the statistics themselves are skewed.
    • The Rooney Rule not being in force for Republicans is not technically in the Independent source; the "Ground up and spit out" one covers it explicitly.
    • The linking for the origins of the name can be improved: the article Dear White People is the movie, not the franchise. Something like "a reference to Dear White People, a film and later a Netflix series" would be more logical.
    • 2022–present: The characterisation that the account retains "a focus on people of color" is frankly a little shaky; it doesn't seem to be explicitly said in the two sources cited.
    • Nor is "a continued lack of staff diversity, with an increasingly low ability to influence public policy at all." seemingly in those two sources, from what I've read. They seem to be covered in The Independent and The Washington Post, respectively.
    • "By the end of January" in the article ≠ "after Jan. 31" in the source.
    • Reactions and impact: Advise sourcing "The account has attracted the interest and ire of representatives and their staffers, both junior and senior." to the other POLITICO source too, since that covers in explicitly (based on just the "Ground up and spit out" source, it doesn't mention people other than aides following it closely).
      • That's more a summary topic sentence than it is a ground-level piece of information, so I don't think a source there would be helpful. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm. I don't love it. Because the sentence is part of the paragraph, it's not clear that it's a topic sentence: it looks like it is sourced by the reference for the succeeding sentence, which is misleading. One possible solution is calling back to that reference again at the end of the subsequent sentence. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've copied both citations up top, does that work?
    • "unfair" is not implied in the source: the source says "being anonymously maligned and they'll have a mess to clean up", which does not say whether it's true.
  • As DYK eligibility requires additional work, I am marking the nomination with . Please address these issues before I can approve this nomination. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dear White Staffers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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 (talk • contribs) (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 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

Politico article from 2023

[edit]

Here’s a May 2023 Politico article about Dear White Staffers that should help build out the article: [1] Thriley (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of account

[edit]

@Theleekycauldron removed the paragraph sourced to the Washington Free Beacon and Jewish Insider about the identity of the account. Both sources are WP:NEWSORGS and are reliable sources. Further, it's not a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY to list the identity, which is of a public employee who has a very public profile and which is an "open secret on the Hill" per JInsider. Longhornsg (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhornsg: What? No, The Washington Free Beacon is not a reliable source per RSP. JInsider doesn't print the name, because it's a somewhat more reputable publication. It is a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY to use anyone's full name unless they are widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. Both of those tests are emphatically not met here. Please revert your addition, as it is a cut-and-dry BLP violation. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's a bit surprising to see WFB as GUNREL given one of the cites at RSP is to a RSP about Newsmax, and the other two are light on participation. I'll start a new RFC that will hopefully receive more participation. I'll remove the name here, but still think its worth including that JInsider had identified the account as a staffer in Congresswoman Lee's office. Longhornsg (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dear_White_Staffers&oldid=1257939598"