Talk:North Carolina Commissioner of Labor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Alexcs114 (talk · contribs) 08:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle I've gone ahead and finished up my review here. 2C & 2D both need some work before I can pass this article - would you like me to put this on Hold so you can have some time to address these issues? If so, how long would you like me to put it on hold for? Thanks, Alexcs114 :) 19:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! First time reviewing an article, so hope I'm doing this correctly - LMK if there are any issues.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

The prose is consistent throughout, though I would (optionally) recommend that some variation in sentence structure be added; at present nearly all sentences in this article feature a repetitive and short sentence structure. Variety with sentence structure can be (in my opinion) a good thing for reader engagement, though it is not at all required for GA. Just a recommendation. The prose is also understandable, which is important. No spelling or grammar issues that I could find after reading the article twice-over.

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Satisfies all requirements for the lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

Reference section is understandable and easy to navigate in line with stylistic guidelines.

b. (citations to reliable sources):

Most sources are from either official government documents or academic reviews on the structure of the North Carolina Constitution, and the rest are from reputable news outlets. Easily passes this.

c. (OR):

Note: Decided which references based off RNGing 5 numbers between 1 and 26.The RNG chose all books, so I've gone ahead and added #20 & #13, which are two websites. Random Spot Check:

* #3: The North Carolina Manual 2001, p. 206: This page does not back up the places it's been cited; it is a list of deaths and impeachments in the office of the governorship that is unrelated to the article. Take for example a: "The first appointed commissioner was Wesley N. Jones", or b:"At the same time... appointed by the legislators" - Neither are stated even once on the page cited.

Err, I think you consulted the wrong edition of the manual. That's all cited to the 2011 edition.

Welp, that's embarrasing. I did go to the wrong one, sorry about that! The 2011 citation checks out.

* #11: Smith & Weinberg 2016, p. 497: Source properly verifies the place it's been cited.

* #5: The North Carolina Manual 2001, p. 271: Source properly verifies both places it's been cited.

* #23: The North Carolina Manual 2001, p. 203: Source does not back up the place it's been cited, and instead discusses the Office of the Lieutenant Governor... Perhaps you are citing the wrong page? Same issue here as with #3.

Also from 2011 edition, not 2001 edition.

Yup. I've checked on the 2011 edition, and the source does verify that.

* #8: Smith & Weinberg 2016, p. 502: I presume that the phrase "Given that Berry serves as the Commissioner of Labor in a state where the position (usually) is not particularly prominent" is the phrase sourced on p. 502 for the statement in your article that "Historically, the office has not usually been politically powerful or prominent in state elections". It's a bit of a strech, since the source mentions usually without regard for historical implication; it may still be a position with minimal political power or prominence. I don't have access to the other source given for this statement, so can't be completely verified.

The relevant quote from Simon 2020 is "the commissioner of labor never had a lot of power to begin with or much of a statewide profile" (and he was speaking about a commissioner in the 1990s and why he wouldn't challenge a political consensus). I think that, combined with the more recent statement from Smith & Weinberg, is sufficient to support what I wrote. I've removed "elections" since that isn't discussed.

Thanks for checking that for me, that works.

* #20: Julie Havlak 2022, p. B5: Backs up the phrase the source is being cited for to a t. No issues here.

* #13: Cherie Berry, The 'Elevator Lady', Won't Seek Reelection: Properly backs up the phrase it's being cited for.

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

Earwig returns "Violation Unlikely", with the top similarity being a whopping 35.1%. That's cause for concern, and looking a bit further at the aforementioned source it seems that there is very similar paraphrasing if not pure copy and pasting. Perhaps the affected portions could be reworded to reduce copyright violation potential? Furthermore, the second most similar source at 28.1% similarity also has a few copy and pasted phrases that need reworking.

With some additional digging into the source material, I've been able to revise the text somewhat to avoid language which is too close to the original source material (I was hesitant to to stray too much from what the sources said for fear of obscuring their factual meaning). Earwig for me now returns 19.4% similarity on the NCPedia article, but this is mostly confined to names of official positions and direct quotes, which cannot be changed for obvious reasons.

Checks out, thank you.

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

Noticed a lot of small details from the sources that could have been added to enhance the article, and I would recommend (optionally) doing so if you'd like to make this article even better. However, this is not required to pass GA, and as such you've passed this portion.

b. (focused):

No undue emphasis on tangents or minor details is present, or at least none that I can spot. Fun but not overbearing trivia about the elevator lady, brings me back to the stop in NC my family made on a roadtrip to CT last year, lol.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:

Article primarily focuses on the legal aspect of the responsibilities and establishment of the office in question, and avoids any discussion of political arguments in favor/against the establishment of the position back in 1887. Overall very neutral article, so well-done on that front.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:

Stable article with no edit wars or content disputes.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

All media in the Public Domain or licensed for Creative Commons except for the logo, which seems to be a proper fair use of the image. Generally nicely illustrated article.

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

All media is relevant to the topic at hand.
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Alexcs114: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: Thank you for working with me here. All of the concerns have been successfully addressed, and so I've passed the article. I'll go ahead and add the pre-requisite templates and such in a minute - Congratulations!