Talk:Forward intelligence team/GA1

GA Review

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

I will do the GA Review for this article. H1nkles (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
More could be added to what FIT does and the positive aspects of their work but there is very limited information on this since the UK police do not publicize their activities.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The article is still a bit unbalanced but given the lack of information to support the FIT teams it is as good as I feel it is going to get.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I feel as though the article is as balanced as it will get, if you has aspirations of FA status then POV issues will need to be addressed in further detail. But for GA it is enough. H1nkles (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Per WP:LEAD the lead is to be a summary of all the topics raised in the article. I don't see any mention of history, controversies or similar units in the Lead. I also don't see much mention of uniform styles in the body of the article, albeit after only a cursory look. I may amend this after I have read through the article.

History

"but the approach has since been extended to routine police work on low-level crime and anti-social behaviour and to police forces around the UK". I'm not sure what is meant by the last portion of this quote, "and to police forces around the UK." Do they work on crime deterrent projects within the police forces around the UK? I'm sorry if I'm missing the obvious here but I'm confused by it in the context of the rest of the sentence.
"Linda Catt, an activist, has suggested that their tactics are "designed to intimidate people and prevent lawful dissent"." Do you have any official purpose of the team put forth by the government or in support of their existence? I'm raising the WP:POV flag here.

Controversies

I'm raising the POV flag a little higher after reading this section. It is evident to me that the editors do not appear to agree with the tactics of the FIT. The length and detail of this section makes this clear to me. Can a section be added that outlines what they do beyond surveillance? Or can more information be added in support of their work or even their existence? There are two sides to every coin and I feel as though I'm reading a lot of one side of the coin.

I agree - I've been trying to think of a different way to restructure this whole section for a while but can never think of a different way. Any suggestions would be welcome. With regard to POV - I think that we've included absolutely every source that makes mention of FITs and this is what they discuss. I've tried to find positive stuff about them but I can't find it. Smartse (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a cursory look around the web using some of the basic terms in this article I would have to agree that there does not appear to be much in support of the FITs. The government does not post anything formal on line explaining or discussing even the existence of these teams. This makes providing balance to the article more challenging. I will consider ways in which this may be accomplished. I do feel as though a GA should be more balanced though we must stay within the confines of available information. Have you considered sources outside of the internet? H1nkles (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do acknowledge that internet sources seem pretty lopsided and very critical of the FIT. That said I still feel strongly that a GA should be more balanced than this article is currently. Are there books on the freedom of dissent in the UK? Are there sociological papers that may shed some light on why there are teams like this in the UK when they don't appear to exist in other countries of a similar political bent (France, U.S., Canada, Australia)? Is there information on the history of free expression in the UK that might help readers see why these teams even exist? I know this is asking a lot but the internet can't be our only source of information, even though it is the most convenient. H1nkles (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar police units

This section is good and helps with comprehensiveness.

Though I note a very recent addition, since this review was finished, that uses the term "scheme" twice. "Scheme" usually has a negative connotation. Can a more neutral word be used here? H1nkles (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it - sorry found that source and had forgotten to add it. Smartse (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref [2] is a dead link, please repair.

Hmm that's annoying - I can't seem to find a different copy. We can hopefully make do without it anyway Smartse (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link - we'll have to make do with an offline reference for this but I don't think that is a problem.

One of the refs is also a url rather than a templated reference, which could be changed. --SGGH ^ping! 12:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Most of the external links are to anti-FIT sites. Again exposing a bias.

Also, not sure if all of them are suitable - suck as the flickr el. --SGGH ^ping! 12:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't a flickr link suitable? WP:ELNO states "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" should not be included. As the flickr link contains copyrighted images there is no way that this content could be incorporated and therefore the link seems appropriate. Also most of the pics on the site are just of FITs not of any obstruction of them by fitwatch. It is true the links are anti-FIT but if this is all that there are what should be done with them? I've removed some links before and they have then been replaced by other users. Smartse (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overaching comments

The article is well-written, and sourced. Images are good. My concern is related to the non-neutral tone on the article's subject and the inadequate Lead. These two issues need to be addressed before I can pass it to GA. I am certainly willing to discuss the POV issue and will happily revisit it if I am off-base. I will put the article on hold for a week pending discussion. If more time is needed I will happily extend the hold. Thank you for your contributions and I hope these comments are taken in good faith. H1nkles (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking in on this article. When last I checked it appeared as though most of my prose and ref issues had been addressed but there was still the compelling POV issue. Has any headway been made on this? I have not read the article recently so if changes have been made let me know and I will read it. I made some suggestions above. I understand it may not be palatable to have this issue holding up passage of the article to GA, but I want to make sure the article is fair to the reasons why the teams exist as well as the dissident views. I welcome discussion on this point. H1nkles (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I've done some more work on the article now, particularly modifying the structure which I think makes it more neutral and writing what I hope is an alright lead. I've managed to find a few positive remarks about them - mostly coming from the police themselves but these are better than nothing. I've searched through a lot of hits for "forward intelligence team" and positive, praise, support etc. but this is all I've managed to find. Could you take another look at the article and provide some pointers?

(outdent) I've read through the article and feel as though work has been done to make it more balanced. It still feels a bit anti-FIT, but I can tell that efforts have been made to make it more neutral. Given that my own efforts to find balanced information were stymied I will pass the article to GA at this point. Well done. H1nkles (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]