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

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

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

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)

The actual review
Miasma Eternal TALK 23:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi, 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)
 * 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)
 * I'm all good, it's just that I have a job and I haven't had time to check the article. Miasma Eternal TALK 22:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Miasma Eternal TALK 10:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ And approved. Seriously, you went above and beyond on this one - you rapidly responded to my suggestions and didn't even break a sweat. Miasma Eternal TALK 10:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update and considering this as GA standard! Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)