# Talk:2021 Oregon Tech strike

This review is transcluded from Talk:2021 Oregon Tech strike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 07:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I will be doing this good article review. I aim to complete the review within the next few days. If you would like to return the favour, I have several good article nominations right now, which you can find at WP:GAN. Steelkamp (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


### Good article criteria
#### Well written
Found nothing wrong with this. Pass. Steelkamp (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


#### Verifiable with no original research
I've fixed some close paraphrasing that I found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Steelkamp (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I've checked every single reference. All of them are reliable and match up with the article. Very impressive. Steelkamp (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


#### Broad in its coverage
By April 28, the union was accusing the university of violating state law by not notifying temporary workers that they were acting as strikebreakers, though the university rejected that they had violated the state statute. – The situation appears to be a bit more complicated than that. I suggest you replace this with By April 28, the union was accusing the university of hiring an outside firm that was violating state law, though the university rejected that they had violated the state statute. The union said that Focus EduVation did not notify temporary workers that they were acting as strikebreakers. Steelkamp (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe should be added that the union compromised on allowing merit based increases. Steelkamp (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


#### Neutral
Both sides are presented fairly. Pass. Steelkamp (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


#### Stable
Yes. Steelkamp (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


#### Illustrated, if possible
Licence for the image seems fine. Image is relevant and has an appropriate caption. This criterion is passed. Good to see there is alt text there as well. Steelkamp (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


### General
Well, I'm putting thit on hold now. This article is very impressive. I thoroughly checked every single reference and found nothing wrong. There is just two suggestions there for criterion three, which should be quite easy to address. Steelkamp (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Steelkamp, hey, just wanted to reach out to tell you that I made some edits to address some of your concerns in the GA review. Thank you again for starting this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please reach  out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
This is all good to pass now. Good job on this. The only thing I would say if you wanted to improve it further is to put the reference numbers in order. For example, where it says [21][14], flip the references so that it says [14][21]. Steelkamp (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)