Talk:Liverpool dockers' dispute (1995–1998)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MiasmaEternal (talk · contribs) 21:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case you can't tell, this is my first review, so bear with me here.

Needs to be reviewed again as article is flawed (Nov 22)

The article has very few references, especially in the first section. Lots of statements that sound to me like personal opinion with a political spin

Copyvio

A copyvio check gave a 18.7% similarity to a Daily Mirror article, so copyvio is unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiasmaEternal (talk • contribs) 22:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The actual review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor and fixable spelling errors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section does not mention the reaction by the media, fellow trade unionists etc. And the sentence "Whilst strike failed in its declared objectives, it was successful in providing a modern example of strong Social Movement Unionism in the United Kingdom" could be considered WP:PUFFERY. Fixed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No problems there.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	A nice mix of online newspaper articles and scholarly sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems there.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	As stated above, only returned a copyvio of under 20%.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It focuses on what caused the dispute, its history, its aftermath, the financial impact etc.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No problems there.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems there.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very little vandalism.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No problems there.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No problems there.
	7. Overall assessment.	Brilliant article, but just needs a few things to be done before it can be passed: * Expand the lead section to cover all of the article. Fix some mild spelling and grammar mistakes. Try to eliminate WP:PUFFERY. ~~A minor nitpick - change "sequence of events" to "History" or just "Events"~~ Fixed.

MiasmaEternal^TALK 23:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi MiasmaEternal, I see you note this is your first review and I also see you only appear to have registered your account a month ago? Normally, editors would wait a few months to understand wikipedia policy fully before undertaking a review of an article to ensure there is some depth of understanding as to how wikipedia works. Are you sure you feel you're ready to undertake a thorough review of the article? As a guide, the kind of reviews I have done before are here (though that isn't to say every review should be that exhaustive). I just wanted to check this with you as 1 month editing history and experience is very short! Regards. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MiasmaEternal: Just checking your progress on this or if you need any advice/assistance from other GA reviewers? I certainly want to encourage new reviewers but please do say if you're unsure of anything. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all good, it's just that I have a job and I haven't had time to check the article. MiasmaEternal^TALK 22:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'll take a look over the next few days and amend where appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MiasmaEternal: I have expanded the lead, which I agree should have included the media reactions. The sentence you considered puffery was a fair one (this existed prior to my involvement with the article, but I accept I should have identified this as requiring a rewrite). I am struggling to identify the multiple spelling/grammar issues though? A reviewer may make minor changes themselves, such as spelling/grammar adjustments, so feel free to do this if you desire. I made a handful of small changes in this area but nothing that would have otherwise been considered necessary. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MiasmaEternal: It's been just over a week since my last update. I believe I worked through your queries and have made a slight addition today too, but nothing major. Please can you advise your thoughts on this as the reviewer? Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just had a chance to look through the article - I changed some of the wording in the lead's third paragraph to make it flow better, but apart from that, it looks like it's met the criteria. MiasmaEternal^TALK 10:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And approved. Seriously, you went above and beyond on this one - you rapidly responded to my suggestions and didn't even break a sweat. MiasmaEternal^TALK 10:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update and considering this as GA standard! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]