![]() | 2009 Royal Mail industrial disputes has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I plan to expand this but it might take me a few days to find and source all the information. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to help, please feel free to expand this. For my own reference (and for others) here are one or two useful links.
Feel free to add to this list. Thanks TheRetroGuy ( talk) 13:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: H1nkles citius altius fortius 23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
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. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Overall it's a good article. It meets the GA Criteria. I made some minor tweaks and left some suggestions above but I don't think anything in my suggestions would preclude it from passing to GA. Congratulations. H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
written very much on the side of the strikers, no balance at all. Honest-john ( talk) 12:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | 2009 Royal Mail industrial disputes has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I plan to expand this but it might take me a few days to find and source all the information. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to help, please feel free to expand this. For my own reference (and for others) here are one or two useful links.
Feel free to add to this list. Thanks TheRetroGuy ( talk) 13:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: H1nkles citius altius fortius 23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
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. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Overall it's a good article. It meets the GA Criteria. I made some minor tweaks and left some suggestions above but I don't think anything in my suggestions would preclude it from passing to GA. Congratulations. H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
written very much on the side of the strikers, no balance at all. Honest-john ( talk) 12:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)