# Talk:2017 Catalan general strike

The revision reinstated false statements such as Military Police and treats as verifiable numbers wild and unverified (and exaggerated) claims from Catalan officials. It describes a referendum held in defiance of an injunction from the Constitutional Court as "Contentious" rather than as "illegal" and in general reflects a totally non-neutral vision of a complex issue.— edit summary If you have an issue with any of the stats/language as presented, raise them for individual discussion here. The article relies almost entirely on major newspapers, but even its minor papers are reputable. If you want to refute their reporting, you must provide a similarly reputable source for the counterclaim, as we counterweight reliable claims with other evidence before simply deleting information. However, none of the proposed changes were cited, and much of the proposed edit was patently non-neutral: "pro-independence" → "radical right-wing" and "fascist"; "warned" → "lied"; "referendum" → "fake referendum". Come on. czar 13:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2017 Catalan general strike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 03:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll review this, comments will be here soon Kingsif (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


### Style
Lead a bit too long for article length
The note on national unions doesn't need to be in brackets
'Planning' would be better titled 'Background'
The sentence "Firefighters and the Catalan police served as supportive, improvised order at some protests" doesn't really make sense - improvising order?
"Seven Nation Army" should be styled like that ("Seven Nation Army"), not in italics - could also add that it's a song by the White Stripes
Some odd word usage (possibly from a direct translation of flowery language) that I've replaced with more common terms
Generally good - just the fixes mentioned above


### Coverage
Lead also a bit too detailed - a lot of it could be moved to 'Planning'
Coverage suitable and well-managed
Pass


### Illustration
Unusual top image (media), but it works
Good use of media
Pass


### Neutrality
Fine
Pass


### Verifiability
Sources look good, and are predominantly English
Pass


### Stability
Been stable for over a year
Pass


### Copyright
Media appropriately licensed
Check looks good
Pass


### Overall
on hold A few style things and a sentence that doesn't make sense. Kingsif (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Kingsif, appreciate the review! Believe I've addressed your above points in prose except for the national union parenthetical, which I kept as an aside. Let me know what you think and thanks for your time. czar 15:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: I find the lead still a bit too long, even with the wide montage - is there any way to remove one of the paragraphs? Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif, done, though I think the lede is weaker for the loss of detail. czar 17:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The lead is just an overview, and it still hits the main points - the article body is for all the detail, and I think it's now got a good balance! Kingsif (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 Well done