Talk:Liverpool dockers' dispute (1995–1998)

Liverpool dockers' dispute (1995–1998) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 18, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Transport: Maritime

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Merseyside Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour Low‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liverpool dockers' strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721024246/http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/liver49.html to http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/liver49.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Liverpool dockers' dispute (1995–98)/GA1. 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)[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]