Talk:Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000/GA1

Latest comment: 4 years ago by MWright96 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 20:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Will be reviewing this article as part of the GAN Backlog Drive of April to May 2020. MWright96 (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   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):  
  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 fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Lead

edit
  • The lead is on the short side. Please expand it to cover the other major points mentioned in the article

Background

edit
  • "During The Troubles, they had been accused" - by whom?
  • "when going through Parliament.[6][2]" - refs in numerical order please

Name of the force

edit
  • The acronyms of Police Service of Northern Ireland should be in brackets on the first instance of its mentioning
  • "Following Conservative Party pressure," - how about Following pressure from the Conservative Party instead?

Recruitment

edit
  • "It stated that the force's size should be reduced by 4,500 officers." - why was this the case?
  • "the Royal Ulster Constabulary had a 91" - the hyphen should be a en dash per MOS:DASH
  • The % symbol is better off written as per cent per MOS:PERCENT
  • The acronyms of the Gaelic Athletic Association should be in brackets

References

edit
  • References 5, 7, 18, 19, 21 and 22 are missing the publication date
  • Reference 10 is missing the second author of the article
  • References 13 and 21 are missing the author(s) of the pieces
  • The publication date for Reference 20 is incorrect

Am going to put the review on hold to allow the nominator to address/query the points raised above. MWright96 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply