Talk:Volkswagen and unions/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coldupnorth (talk · contribs) 08:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Good day, I will undertake the GA review of this article and will list my comments and findings below. Thank you. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary

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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, a well referenced and interesting article. I believe there are a few minor issues with regards clarity and writing as per below. Also a reference is needed for one paragraph. Overall, it is nearly at GA. I have placed the article on hold to allow you to address the comments below. Thank you. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments/Actions

• Lead - The lead section should be improved. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for further guidance. While this is a group of organizations, the title of the article should ideally be in the first sentence. Also the opening sentence The German auto manufacturer Volkswagen Group, with operations in 29 countries across 120 plants, employs over 120,000 people within Germany and 600,000 globally, it is one of the most well organized labour backed companies in the world. is long. I would suggest splitting up into a couple of sentences. I also think the lead section could be expanded to provide a better overview of the article. For example, the lead should define that Works Councils and IG Metalls are Volkswagen worker organizations. Instead it says they play a unique role. It is not sufficiently clear.

 Done

• Transnational activity - third sentence. 'Transnational labor organizing'. Here, the spelling 'labor' is used, but in the lead 'labour' is used. There should be consistency between spelling if the article is using British English. I would also note that the title of the article has 'organizations' yet there is a tag in the lead to use British English which would be 'organisations'.

 Done now using Oxford English

• Transnational activity - first paragraph. There needs to be a linking sentence/introduction as to how the International Solidarity working group, European Works Council, etc fit into the context of Volkswagen worker organizations as it is not immediate clearl. For example, Workers of Volkswagen are represented through several different organisations, including...

 Done

• Global Works Council - first paragraph. It consisted of 27 seats - please define further. Who are these seats for? Workers across the group? Or a mixture of workers, managers, shareholders?

 Done

• Global Works Council - second paragraph. "A general tension exists between the interests of the workers in the host country (Germany) and foreign member states of the European and Global Works Council, but workers in foreign states also gain strategic benefits from having close access to a well resourced trade union (IG Metall) and the Germany-based Works Council structures." This sentence is not clear. General tension is somewhat ambigious. I would suggest splitting up into a couple of sentences and clearly define what the tension is in relation to? For example, working hours, pay, etc?

 Done this article gives some interesting examples, of how weaker labour standards are perceived as competitive advantages for employers, so German trade unions are able to counteract that, by strengthening worker rights, with transnational instruments. On other hand, in case of Italy, Germany's social-partnership approach differs from the more conflictual industrial dispute model..

• VW World Group Council - The table is as of 1999. I appreciate sources may be difficult for an article of this kind, however a 23 year old reference of group council members is well out of date. Please consider sourcing an alternative reference.

 Partly done I will keep the table here for now, but found in existing source, claim that there are now 100 employee representatives as of 2017.

• Supervisory Board - there is a clarification needed tag. Unlike its automotive competitors BMW or Daimler, this means there is only one federally negotiated collective agreement between the employer and IG Metall, which is more favourable for all Germany based VW workers as a result. To what extent is it more favourable? Also, what are the differences with BMW or Daimler, do they have multiple collective agreements?

 Done Yeah, BMW/Daimler and most other employees conclude an agreement for example with Gesammtmetal Berlin, Gesammtmetal Bayern and so on, instead of a singular/federal collective agreement. Sources are rather inconclusive about which agreements are Inhouse versus company, but the general point is, VW directly negotiates with IG Metall, which is unique. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• 1937-1945: Nazi origins - consider adjusting the structure of this section. This text seemed out of place as did the adjacent section. The history should come first, then with a discussion of the current councils, board, chair etc. For example, the historical section onVolkswagenwerk should be before the parent group being privisated in 1960 in the previous paragraph.

 Done

• South Africa - 2nd paragraph - reference needed for "By May 1969, half of VWSA's coloured workers were organized with the National Union of Motor Assembly and Rubber Workers of South Africa (NUMAWOSA) and they were formally recognized by VWSA"

 Done and also corrected page numbers.

• General comment - Looking at the associated List of Volkswagen Group factories , the Mladá Boleslav factory in the Czech Republic is the third largest VW factory, with some 27,000+ employees. However, VW worker organisations in the Czech Republic are not discussed, although Slovakia is. Given the scale of this in relation to other VW factories, I would have expected coverage on the Czech republic. Although I do not think this prevents the article being GA, as it is comprehensive generally, I think it would be a good addition should content/references be available.

 Done

• General comment - consider adding additional imagery and captions to the country based sections.

 Not done I have scoured Flickr and Wikimedia for permissably licensed imagery. It is not easy. I have also contacted some of these worker organizations, to see if they would be willing to donate material. If that changes, I will insert them in. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you User:Coldupnorth for such a thorough and excellent review! I will make my way through your comments. I have some time tomorrow, but otherwise will be traveling until October 23rd with limited internet access, so let me know if you'd be willing to extend your waiting period for reviews. Either way, kind regards! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Shushugah, your welcome. Not a problem, I am happy to leave it on hold until after the 23rd to give you the time to work through the comments. Please just let me know when its ready. Many thanks Coldupnorth (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Coldupnorth hey there, am making my way through your reviews. I hope to be done by the end of this week and already the article is in improved state. I included some comments on my progress/clarifications. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Shushugah, thank you, that's good progress. I will continue to keep on hold, please let me know when you finish responding to all the comments. Re the additional imagery, no problem, it was a 'nice to have', not a 'need to have' as there are at least a few images + captions in the article. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Shushugah how are you getting on with addressing the remaining queries? The article has now been on hold for quite a long time, longer than normal for the GA process. If you are unable to reserve these queries soon, I will need to fail the article. Thanks. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Coldupnorth thank you for the patient nudge. I have been working on it continuously, (careful reading of the sources was most time-consuming, not surprisingly) and I believe I have now addressed all of your concerns. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Conclusion

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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hi Shushugah, thank you for replying to the queries and making the required changes/reference additions. I now believe this article is at GA level. Well done. Coldupnorth (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

References