Talk:2009 Royal Mail industrial disputes

Useful links

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.

• Guardian - 14 July 2009
• postal strike uk
• BBC Q&A on the dispute
• BBC - What is happening to the Royal Mail?
• British Mail news site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.199.254 (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add to this list. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Have expanded this quite a lot now and it gives much more information on the background of the strike, etc. I'll keep updating this from time to time, but if anyone else can help please feel free to do so. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Royal Mail industrial disputes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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. 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 Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Quality is good, there was some punctuation and spelling errors that I corrected but there are probably others that I missed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I left some suggestions for expansion but overall I felt it was pretty comprehensive and fair.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Very good on this point, which is refreshing given the subject matter.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good article congratulations. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead and Background

• I've only read these first two sections. The writing looks good, I've made a few edits to remove redundant wording and improve the punctuation. Nothing major though.
• It seems like more could be added to the background. The information discusses the issue that brought the parties to a standstill but there is no indication of the efforts made to avoid the strike. Were negotiations started before the first walk out? There is a passing reference to discussions between the two parties in the second to last sentence but it's pretty sparse. Any more info out there on the work done prior to the strike? Other than this I think the two sections are good, I won't know the comprehensiveness of the lead until I get through the rest of the article. That's all I can do right now, I'll review more hopefully tomorrow. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 23:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Suspension of strike action

• What is the difference between a national strike, which occurred on 22 and 23 October and an "all out strike" discussed in the first sentence of this section? Is it the number of workers involved? Or a strike with an indefinite time frame?

Resolution

• Can the final paragraph be expanded or combined? A two-sentence paragraph is not ideal, and it is uncited.

References

• References are good, credible and formatting is consistent and correct.

Overall

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)

npov

written very much on the side of the strikers, no balance at all.Honest-john (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This article has been assessed for GA, which would suggest otherwise. Also, you need to add sources for any quotes you add. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)