Talk:Coors strike and boycott/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Kncny11 (talk · contribs) 14:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article as part of the July 2021 good article nominations backlog drive! Any section that I've marked with a tag means that I haven't finished leaving comments there, but you're free to begin making changes as soon as you see them!  Kncny11  (shoot) 14:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Lede

 * Use the short description template at the top to give a quick description of the event – something like, "20th century labor action against Coors Brewing Company"

Background

 * "to not be" "not to be"
 * Done.
 * "requiring the beer" "which required the beer"
 * Done.
 * Capitalize the W in "American West"
 * Done.
 * "Coors's" "Coors'"
 * Done.
 * Split the sentence beginning "In 1974" into two, with the break after "Public Broadcasting." That'll keep it from being too long
 * Done.

Boycott begins

 * Delink discrimination, race, newspaper, and pub, per MOS:OVERLINK
 * Done.
 * Do link African American the first time it appears
 * Done.
 * "approximately 2%" "approximately 2 percent" per MOS:PERCENT
 * Done.
 * "Joseph Coors's" "Joseph Coors'"
 * Done.
 * "the college later got" "the college later filed"
 * Done.
 * "45%" "45 percent" per MOS:PERCENT
 * Done.
 * Explain what Harvey Milk's political station was at the time
 * Done.
 * WL the Briggs Amendment
 * Done.

Strike action

 * WL The New York Times
 * I'm not sure if doing so would be overlinking, as I already linked The New York Times in the Background section.
 * Delink "firing" and "seniority", per MOS:OVERLINK
 * Done.
 * "92%" "92 percent" per MOS:PERCENT
 * Done.
 * Specify April 5, 1977 in the text
 * Done.
 * "However, on April 6," "However, the next day,"
 * Done.
 * "they would possibly" "they ran the risk"
 * Done.
 * "decertify the union, and after" "decertify the union, and, after"
 * Done.

Continued boycott

 * "In 1979, both the American GI Forum and the Mexican American Political Association (a California-based organization)" "In 1979, botht he American GI Forum and the California-based Mexican American Political Association"
 * Done.
 * "announced that they were ending"
 * Done.
 * "Forum stating that there had been"
 * Done.
 * "that Coors sponsored" "sponsored by Coors"
 * Done.
 * "Joseph Coors's opposition" "Joseph Coors' opposition"
 * Done.
 * the company "signed a $325 million [missing word]"
 * Fixed.
 * Delink "advertisement", per MOS:OVERLINK
 * Done.

End of the boycott

 * In February 1987, the AFL–CIO rejected an offer put forward by Coors, but later that year, on August 19, they announced an end to the boycott after reaching an agreement with the company. The AFL–CIO rejected Coors' initial offer in February 1987, but on August 19, they announced that they had come to an agreement with the company and would be ending their boycott.
 * Done.
 * Use an en dash rather than a hyphen for the Tasini quote, you can use the template –
 * Done.

Impact

 * In the second and third sentence, change all instances of the % symbol to the word "percent", per MOS:PERCENT
 * Done.
 * However, these numbers and the impact the boycott had on the decline is disputed by company representatives. The placement of this sentence is not intuitive, as it's immediately followed by a sentence where they admit that the boycott played a role. Maybe after the LA Times quote is better
 * Rearranged the section a bit.
 * "Coors's" "Coors'"
 * Done.

Legacy in the LGBT community

 * For GLAAD, WL the full name and not the acronym
 * Done.
 * "several highlighting" "several of which highlighted"
 * Done.
 * If I'm reading it properly, that the "targeting the community" phrase is in relation to the advertisements, then the section in parentheticals should be moved to after the word "community"
 * Done.

General comments

 * Pictures are all available for use and are relevant to the article
 * No stability problems present
 * Earwig copyvio score checks out at 37.1%, with the highest percentages due to attributed direct quotations
 * Broadness, focus, and neutrality all check out

Great job so far! Mostly just some nitpicky things for flow, as well as some of our less intuitive manual of style guidelines (the percentage one always throws me, too). The only other general comment I would make is that there are a lot of parenthetical comments here, and if those can be worked into the flow of the sentence, that usually looks better from an encyclopedic perspective. I noted at least one example above. Let me know if you have any questions, and I'll put this on hold to allow comments to be addressed!  Kncny11  (shoot) 17:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , just wanted to reach out and let you know I addressed your comments here and think the page should be good to go now. Thanks for starting this review, and if there are any further comments or concerns, feel free to reach out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks all good on my end. Happy to pass!  Kncny11  (shoot) 03:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)