Talk:IBM and unions/GA3

GA Review

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

Nominator: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 19:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TheGhostGum (talk · contribs) 14:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Sections

Lead

The lead section needs to be extended to fully encapsulate the comprehensive content of the article. offer the readers a succinct yet thorough introduction to IBM's global union relationships. Maybe even mention the major unions globally?

Overall

Add something around the relationship of the union and IBM in each country. Eg which part of the ACFTU covers IBM workers in china. Does the CPSU cover IBM in australia right now?. Think each section having a more general overview of the interests first will help the article fit the major aspects

Images and References

Existing images used correctly and free to use. No extra images readily available that can be found. From spot check everything is mostly fine, would be good to fix up the archive issue (check the rest for the same error). Also fix up Ref-2 so that the easily replaced claims are replaced by freely accessible sources.

Spot-check

Checking first 10 Refs

• Ref-1: Backs up claim
• Ref-2: Unable to access in any way, requires an account. Highlighted by previous spot checked, I think due to this being used for claims that mostly can be easily found in public articles and resources a difference source should replace it. Eg "BM was founded in 1911 in Armonk, New York." can be sourced from elsewhere.
• Ref-3: Backs up claim
• Ref-4: Backs up claim
• Ref-5: Backs up claim, but not easily accessible without account. Also I think it would be nice if this source was used a bit more specifically instead of just listing several pages as the source.
• Ref-6: Backs up claim
• Ref-7: Backs up claim
• Ref-8: Backs up claim, Source doesn't use short form so might be best to use long form in the note
• Ref-9: Citation backs up claim, Archive link broken it seems?
• Ref-10: Backs up claim

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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused) It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• Comment: @Shushugah and TheGhostGum: where are we at with this review? It doesn't look like there's been much activity recently and I just wanted to check in. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hey, This is completely my bad and should of been completed over a week ago. Had some Power and Internet related issues. will upload the review today. TheGhostGum (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Shushugah think the sources and intro are really the only major things. TheGhostGum (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TheGhostGum oh hey! I didn't see the update till now, will work on it ASAP, thank you for the ping! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TheGhostGum friendly ping and sorry for delay on my end as well ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Putting in for a second opinion on the Major aspect jus to check if enough is stated in the article as the merit a GA. And to check in on the sources again. TheGhostGum (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)