Talk:NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc.

GA Review
I am going to pass this article as Good Article. It clearly explains the events leading up to and following the NLRB ruling. There is still a lot of work until FA though. More references are needed, perhaps some cases relying on this ruling. Dagomar 00:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My review is complete.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Just a tiny problem. "As a result the changing decisions of the NLRB over time, while workers who are not union members do not currently have the right to the presence of a representative during management inquiries, it is unclear whether that will be true in the future." What is the word "currently" mean? Give a date or year. OhanaUnited   Talk page   04:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review &mdash; kept
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,Ruslik 07:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lede too short
Lede fails WP:LEAD, does not adequately summarize entire contents of article. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)