Talk:Shooting of James Ashley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 14:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Reserving this for myself: I'll make a start shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

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.	See below.
	Not all of these need to be covered for GA, (which this is broadly at already) but these may help for any next steps Lead "Armed officers had been sent to raid the flat based on reports that Ashley kept a firearm and a quantity of cocaine there, and to arrest Ashley and another man in connection with a stabbing, but no firearm or significant quantity of drugs was found, the other man was not present, and it later emerged that Ashley was not implicated in the stabbing." This is a bit of a monster sentence! Full stop after "connection with a stabbing" and restart? The second Ashley (in "and to arrest Ashley") can be "him" too "House of Lords (the United Kingdom's highest court)" -> "House of Lords (then the United Kingdom's highest court)," as some smartarse like me will ask about the Supreme Court without realising the dates concerned. Prelude "man from Liverpool" -> Liverpudlian? Inquiries "An inquiry was launched" It may be worth a quick line to say that there is always an inquiry after a death by shooting (https://www.pfoa.co.uk/articles/police-involved-shooting is a good one to use) That's it from me on the prose front.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).	All information is cited to reliable and appropriate sources
	2c. it contains no original research.	All information is cited to reliable sources
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows only matches on names/titles and where material has been quoted appropriately
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers the cause, the effents and the long ramifications well
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Good on all three
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Three images: two PD with good licences; one non-PD relevant for the topic, licence is complete and well rounded
	7. Overall assessment.

Hi Gavin. Thank you very much for the review. I believe I've addressed all your comments except for "Liverpudlian", which I think would be less clear to an international audience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• That's fair enough. The rest looks good enough for GA. I hope it does well at FAC, and doesn't attract the attention of at least one of the individuals who is making the process rather unpleasant at the moment! - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)