Talk:Dear White Staffers/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

Thanks, @Sammielh! I've left replies wherever I didn't do as asked :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

• 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?
  • Probably not? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
    • That's fine, I was just thinking how some tv/movie articles include how the title is stylised. Sammielh (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
• 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)
  • I'd say too much detail. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• Optional but could be worth updating the followers in the infobox
• Appropriate fair use image

Background, reactions

• 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)
  • I wouldn't be sure about that, but you're probably right. Haven't added to avoid OR, but I'll mull it over. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
    • It's not critical and I agree that it borders on OR, just thought I would mention. Sammielh (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
• Quotes should have a reference immediately following them
  • I'll challenge you to provide a policy source on that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
    • 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)

      @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)

• 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

• 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