Talk:Dear White Staffers

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 Cielquiparle (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Instagram's Dear White Staffers facilitates "vibe checks" on members of the United States Congress? This might make a good quirky hook.^(?)
  • ALT1: ... that the "vibe checks" of Dear White Staffers are credited with kickstarting the unionization of U.S. congressional staff?
  • Reviewed: List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War
  • Comment: ALT hooks welcome, I'm not quite sure about these.

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 10:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

• ALT2: ... that the creator of Dear White Staffers, one of few congressional aides of color, has been mistaken for a valet at events?
  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. That's definitely hooky – I'm not sure I love that, though, because I do want the hook to be about the account and not the creator. Can't quite figure out how to meld the two, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hiya. The article was new enough at time of nomination (DYK nomination on 20 January, having been moved to the mainspace on the same day, and has not appeared on the Main Page) and is long enough (7773 characters of readable prose and is not a stub). The hooks are interesting, sourced, and formatted properly, though I think that a hook emphasising its origins as a meme account and linking that to its effect in the unions movement would be even more appealing. A quid pro quo was done. With regards to core content policies such as copyright, neutrality, and BLP, I did not detect any violations. However, there are some verifiability issues with the article. In addition, I have included suggestions that can make this article better – these are not DYK eligibility issues, but are given with the aim of (in addition to improving the encyclopaedia) helping with its GA nomination. I trust that you'll be able to classify to which set each comment belongs.
  • Background and history: "worked for sitting senators and representatives" doesn't seem to be supported by the POLITICO sources.
  • 2020–2022: "attributes a disproportionate amount of the blame in hiring disparities to Republicans" seems to imply that the blame being assigned is disproportionate to the statistics, when I think you're trying to say that the statistics themselves are skewed.
  • The Rooney Rule not being in force for Republicans is not technically in the Independent source; the "Ground up and spit out" one covers it explicitly.
  • The linking for the origins of the name can be improved: the article Dear White People is the movie, not the franchise. Something like "a reference to Dear White People, a film and later a Netflix series" would be more logical.
  • 2022–present: The characterisation that the account retains "a focus on people of color" is frankly a little shaky; it doesn't seem to be explicitly said in the two sources cited.
    • What is your opinion on this? Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Coulda sworn I deleted it, but I've went ahead and done that now :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor is "a continued lack of staff diversity, with an increasingly low ability to influence public policy at all." seemingly in those two sources, from what I've read. They seem to be covered in The Independent and The Washington Post, respectively.
  • "By the end of January" in the article ≠ "after Jan. 31" in the source.
    • See the previous paragraph in said source, I think :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have made it clearer, but my comments are as the article progresses. I was referring to the second "By the end of January" near the end of the section, not the one at the start. You were right to use that phrase the first time (as the article says that's when the "mission of @dear_white_staffers was clear in the man's mind"), but for the follower count, it says "after Jan. 31". Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aha. Changed that one to After the end of January. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reactions and impact: Advise sourcing "The account has attracted the interest and ire of representatives and their staffers, both junior and senior." to the other POLITICO source too, since that covers in explicitly (based on just the "Ground up and spit out" source, it doesn't mention people other than aides following it closely).
    • That's more a summary topic sentence than it is a ground-level piece of information, so I don't think a source there would be helpful. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. I don't love it. Because the sentence is part of the paragraph, it's not clear that it's a topic sentence: it looks like it is sourced by the reference for the succeeding sentence, which is misleading. One possible solution is calling back to that reference again at the end of the subsequent sentence. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've copied both citations up top, does that work?
  • "unfair" is not implied in the source: the source says "being anonymously maligned and they'll have a mess to clean up", which does not say whether it's true.
    • I usually take 'maligned' to mean 'slandered' or 'vilified', rather than "reasonably criticized". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to be either. Subject to interpretation, I suppose, though I think one is the safer option. Up to you. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I'm gonna stick with this for now, but if it turns out to be a Thing, I'll reconsider :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• As DYK eligibility requires additional work, I am marking the nomination with . Please address these issues before I can approve this nomination. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, Sdrqaz! Just took a whack at fixing the issues I haven't commented on :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left comments on four items. Please also let me know if you want to propose any other ALTs, given your misgivings over ALTs 0–2. I gave a suggestion above, but you're free to take it or ignore it – the currently-proposed hooks are in-policy. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sdrqaz: responded to all of 'em – to your suggestion: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • ALT3: ... that two years after Instagram's Dear White Staffers started out as a small meme account, it was credited with kickstarting the unionization of U.S. congressional staff?
      • Thank you for getting back to me and for your work on this article – all the best on the GAN. I believe that the idea behind ALT3 is more attractive, but it is longer than the other hooks (while still being in-line with the guidelines). The promoter will have to weigh up these factors when making their choice. Approved, Sdrqaz (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks so much, Sdrqaz! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]