Talk:2021–2022 Columbia University strike/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 21:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this within the next couple of days! — GhostRiver 21:18, 13 September 2021 (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

Infobox and lede

• Specify in the first sentence that it was a labor strike among graduate students at Columbia
  • Done.
• "disagreements between the two entities has" → "disagreements between the two entities have"
  • Done.
• "Additional issues included" the rest of the paragraph is in present tense; have these additional issues been resolved?
  • Rephrased to present tense.

Background

Unionization at Columbia

• WL first instance of labor union in the body
  • Done.

Contract negotiations

• Delink teaching assistants, already linked above
  • Done.
• "a one year extension for PhD students" → "a one-year funding extension for doctoral candidates whose research had been interrupted by pandemic shutdowns" (I know there is a difference between simple doctoral and PhD, but this has been the crux of the issue in a lot of higher ed COVID disputes, and I believe it is supported by the source)
  • Done.
• Delink coffee and doughnuts per MOS:OVERLINK
  • Done.

Course of the strike

• "including the class of 2024 class president" → "including the president of the Class of 2024"
  • Done.
• "the Spectator was claiming that" → "the Spectator reported that" per MOS:DOUBT
  • Done.
• "an op-ed in Technician" → "an op-ed in the Technician" (I know it's technically incorrect, but it flows better)
  • Done.
• "the 7 bargaining unit members" → "the seven bargaining unit members" per MOS:NUMBERS
  • Done.
• "The remaining 3 members" → "The remaining three members" per [{MOS:NUMBERS]]
  • Done.

Aftermath

• Good

References

• Good

General comments

• All photos are properly licensed and are relevant to the article
• No stability concerns present in the revision history
• Earwig score looks good at 22.5%, the highest due to an attributed direct quote

Putting on hold to address comments, all minor things. Ping me if there are any questions. — GhostRiver 12:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

GhostRiver, just pinging to let you know that I've made some changes to the article to address your comments here. Thanks again for starting this review, and if there are any further questions, comments, or concerns, please reach out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks all good now, happy to pass! — GhostRiver 13:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)