Talk:NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc.
NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 17, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the 1975 U.S. Supreme Court case NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. allowed all workers in unionized workplaces to have a union representative present during management inquiries that might result in discipline? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]I am going to pass this article as Good Article. It clearly explains the events leading up to and following the NLRB ruling. There is still a lot of work until FA though. More references are needed, perhaps some cases relying on this ruling. Dagomar 00:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
Just a tiny problem. "As a result the changing decisions of the NLRB over time, while workers who are not union members do not currently have the right to the presence of a representative during management inquiries, it is unclear whether that will be true in the future." What is the word "currently" mean? Give a date or year. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
GA review — kept
[edit]This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,Ruslik 07:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Lede too short
[edit]Lede fails WP:LEAD, does not adequately summarize entire contents of article. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles
- Low-importance U.S. Supreme Court articles
- WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles
- GA-Class law articles
- Mid-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- GA-Class organized labour articles
- Mid-importance organized labour articles
- Organized Labour portal article of the day
- WikiProject Organized Labour articles
- GA-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles