Talk:Trader Joe's unions

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trader Joe's unions/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 05:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Initial comments

Hello, am looking forward to reviewing this. I will go over all the criteria, but first wanted to mention some points that immediately stood out to me

• The main lede does not adequately mention the two NY drives or Kentucky drive, and it's easy detail to miss. A summary of 5 union drives, 3 successful or something like that would be great.
• Many highly technical terms like collective bargaining, union certification, independent union could be wikilinked etc...
• Contextualizing Littler Mendelson as known anti-union firm would be useful but not mandatory
• Trader Joe's employs 50,000 employees, across its 530 stores.

Content wise, I came to suggest adding the recent union-drives and also 2016 attempt, but I see those were added already. Will add more final review soon

References

Reply

Thanks! I was looking to avoid putting a tally/counter in the lede that would need to be updated each time, partially because there is no "count" of union drives (many of which just aren't public) and because it's unclear whether, for example, we'd count the NYC Wine Shop, which never actually petitioned. It's simpler to just count the successful drives and refer in passing to there being more drives in progress or unsuccessful (unless, of course, something about those drives makes them lede-worthy). I've addressed the others. Appreciate the review! czar 11:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Final review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some technical terms could be expanded and wikified more, but grammar and prose quality are high
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I did an exhaustive search myself and everything I could find, was already in the article. Including historic news clippings.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations on yet another Good Article about WP:LABOR

Congratulations User:Czar on another Good Article! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)