Talk:Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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)

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

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

Background

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

Name of the force

• 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

• "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 9–1" - 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

• 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)

• • @MWright96: Thank you for the review. I have made amendments based upon your comments so it should be good for another look now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @The C of E: I am happy with the changes and will promote this article to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)