Jump to content

Talk:2020 University of Illinois Hospital strikes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 01:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough (begun March 12), long enough (7,858 characters), well-cited to reliable sources throughout. Hook 126 characters, cited to and in refs 1 and 18, among others, broadly interesting, not unduly negative re a living person. QPQ done, no image. Before this hook can be approved, the SEIU list of demands needs to be paraphrased because it's currently an unquoted quote verbatim from the SEIU site. I also wonder if there's room to mention the hospital's rationales for not agreeing to proposed contracts (e.g., per ref 1, that nurse-patient ratios "don't work" or whatever they said). Otherwise, article looks to be in good shape and is nearly ready. —Collint c 20:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2020 University of Illinois Hospital strikes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 10:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be about a week finalise my comments. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·

Comments

[edit]

Overall, this is very close to GA, I've got only quibbles which can be dealt with via copy-edits. My only concern is that there are a few points where opinions expressed are not clearly identified with their source or where opinions are not presented with a counterpoint. Let me know if you've got any questions about these.

Lead

  • The first sentence contains multiple repeated information (strikes, university, Illinois etc) and as the opening paragraph of the lead needs to summarise with a little more detail. Perhaps rephrase the first sentence as: "The 2020 University of Illinois Hospital strikes were the result of a breakdown in contract negotiations between labor unions and management over staffing levels, salaries and personal protective equipment." Then add a sentence or two which identifies the specific parties (INA, SEIU...is the name of employer group/management available?), the time of the strikes.
    • Reworked the first sentence to address these issues.
  • I think worth including in the lead the fact that between the two unions and the hospital management more than 70 bargaining sessions had occurred prior to the strikes.
    • Added this bit of information to the lead.
  • Last sentence: "Both unions voted to accept their respective contracts by October." This is sentence is slightly ambiguous: it's not clear whether the contracts were actually accepted. Given it's July 2021, can we say conclusively that the unions ratified the contracts? or not?
    • Edited this sentence to be more clear on the status of the contracts.

Infobox

  • increased nurse-patient ratios (ie more nurses to patients, not less nurses to patients, eg going from 1 nurse per 4 patients to 1 nurse per 3 patients is an increase, not a decrease, in nurse-patient ratios).
    • Fixed.
  • Goals: can we add "$15/hr system-wide minimum wage"?
    • Added.
  • Resulted in: the existence of a contract was not in dispute, the details of the contract were in dispute, so the result is not actually a contract. Perhaps: "new contract with provisions for wage rises, PPE access, limits to outsourcing, $15/hr minimum wage for Chicago campus"
    • Rephrased results section to better express the contents of the contracts.

INA

  • "A September 2020 article in the Chicago Sun-Times claimed that approximately 270 UIH workers had contracted COVID-19 by that time" ... is this a "claim"? The term veers towards POV, "reported" would be more neutral. Ideally though, it would be good (though not necessary) if that data could be confirmed.
    • Changed claimed to reported.
  • "the ruling barred 525 nurses from strike action," can we add why? I assume this relates to excluding intensive/critical care nurses...?
    • Additional additional information here, rephrased that section.
  • "Multiple sources claimed that the hospital was resistant to changing their policy on nurse-to-patient ratios, stating "set nurse-to-patient ratios do not work."" This statement is presented somewhat unclearly to my reading - one would assume these are management sources, can this be clarified? The quote itself is an assertion with no evidence; it presents a management opinion with no counterpoint from the INA.
    • Added counterpoint quote from the president of the INA, slightly rephrased the original sentence.
  • I read this whole section as somewhat unbalanced between management opinion and the INA's - there's one quote from the INA, but this is simply reporting a fact (ie we're going on strike), whereas the quote from the hospital employer's writ is an assertion of their moral judgement (ie striking is a threat to the public). Also, in reporting the outcome of the management writ, "a judge granted a temporary restraining order against some select nurses, preventing them from striking" the main point is missed - ie the management's attempt to stop the strike was stopped...something along the lines of "A judge refused to grant an order halting the strike, but did prohibit some classes of nurses, mostly those in critical care, from stopping work."
    • Rephrased a substantial portion of the end of this section in an attempt to provide a more neutral point of view.

SEIU

  • "On September 11, a restraining order, similar to the one for the INA, prevented approximately 300 SEIU members from participating." Same points as above: can we explain the exclusions? Can we indicate that the management attempt to stop the strike failed, but some workers excluded.
    • As in the above section, rephrased parts of this section to provide a more neutral point of view.

Course of the strikes

  • "first walkout the UIH had experienced in 46 years" - this fact should be in the lead.
    • Added to lead.
  • Is there any sourcing to indicate the unions coordinated their actions, lent solidarity to each other?
    • The only mention I could find of something of that sort is from Labor Notes, which mentions that the Local 73 strike was timed to coincide with the INA strike and a Local 73 representative talked about "solidarity" with the INA nurses. Otherwise, from what I can find, none of the other sources talk about coordination between the unions. Made a note of this in the text.
  • One of the SEIU documents indicates that the Governor gave assurances on the question of outsourcing PPE ... is it possible to confirm this and the precise role the governor played?
    • The only reference I could find in either of the SEIU documents to Governor Pritzker claimed "PPE commitment from Gov. Pritzker." as one of the points in their tentative agreement. Unfortunately, I couldn't really find a reference to this in any other reliable source.

General

[edit]
  • Images: none whatsoever... not necessary, I realise for GA, but is nothing possible? At worst, what about this image at right?
    • Added the image to the article.
  • Copyvio Earwig percentages a little high, but this is the result of the use of quotes, which are attributed, so no problems.
  • References spotchecked five, all acceptable. However, one request - is there an alternative to "Liberation News"? It's a news source from a far-left political organisation, not necessarily problematic, but given the information provided needs to be better qualified, perhaps it can be replaced.
    • Unfortunately, that's the only source I could find that gave a date for when Local 73 ratified their agreement with the hospital.

Overall

[edit]

As above, very close to GA. Let me know what you think, regards --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn, just wanted to ping you and let you know that I addressed most of your comments here regarding the state of the article. Thank you again for starting this GA review process, and if there are any more comments or concerns regarding the article, please reach out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JJonahJackalope Thank you! Looks like you've addressed everything. I've just completed a quick overall copy-edit; let me know what you think. My final comments:
  1. this link looks to be the source of the management claims regarding nurse-patient ratios and the quote you added from the INA president seems a direct rebuttal of this. Perhaps consider adding this as a source for the sentence on management's claim that nurse patient ratios don't work? This source is also useful as it gives management recognised numbers of union members (1,400 INA; 4,000 SEIU) - these could be added to the infobox.
Added additional source to the nurse patient ratio claim.
  1. is it possible to add two or three brief sentences at the end regarding how the parties (INA, SEIU and management) viewed the conclusion of the dispute? eg SEIU claims it as a win, INA gratified over staffing level changes, management sound relieved (NB this UIC source shows a shift to four year contracts from three year contracts; worth including that fact in the article. It is to my mind a union concession, but I doubt a source will be found to confirm it was actually a concession).
Added these sources and added a brief conclusion discussing both the lengths of the contracts and how they were regarded by the three parties.
  1. this source indicates four UIH workers had died from COVID-19...do you consider this worth adding to the article in the part which mentions the 270 who had contracted the virus?
Added this source and included their reporting on four UIH workers dying from the virus.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn, thanks for the additional information here! Made some additional edits and I think things should be good to go, but please feel free to reach out if there are any additional comments, questions, or concerns. Thanks, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JJonahJackalope All looks GTG; will promote now. Thank you for being so quick with the responses. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_University_of_Illinois_Hospital_strikes&oldid=1196866964"