Talk:Bow Street/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 12:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Will review. MWright96 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC) fiction, and lists)'':
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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 ''([[WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE|appropriate
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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 ''([[WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE|appropriate
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ''([[WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE|appropriate

use]] with suitable captions)'':
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * no dub links


 * Early history


 * "1635-6" & "1673-7" should have the long dashes for consistency
 * The problem is User:GregU/dashes.js, which I run over articles every now and again for dash fixes, doesn't do anything on this article right now so I can only assume it's correct per MOS Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Law


 * "1703-4" - ditto
 * Mind explaining who Henry Fielding is?
 * I think that can be done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Later history


 * "a riot broke out on Bow Street after around 2000 foreign servicemen recuperating from World War I clashed with local police." First World War
 * Are you sure about that? I have generally seen "World War I" consistently referred to in GAs on obviously British subjects elsewhere (random example), and it is the base name of the article. Historically, British English has been "First World War" but I've noticed a switch over the last ten years to WWI even in obviously British articles. The only other place we could go is WT:MILHIST. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this is the case no action is needed.


 * "including accessibility by the disabled," for?
 * Yes, fixed, the other wording implies the designers are disabled Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * References


 * No dead links

I found no other issues. On hold MWright96 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've addressed the issues above for further discussion. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Article is now GA class. MWright96 (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)