# Talk:Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000

This review is transcluded from Talk:Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 20:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Will be reviewing this article as part of the GAN Backlog Drive of April to May 2020. MWright96 (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Lead
The lead is on the short side. Please expand it to cover the other major points mentioned in the article


### Background
"During The Troubles, they had been accused" - by whom?
"when going through Parliament.[6][2]" - refs in numerical order please


### Name of the force
The acronyms of Police Service of Northern Ireland should be in brackets on the first instance of its mentioning
"Following Conservative Party pressure," - how about Following pressure from the Conservative Party instead?


### Recruitment
"It stated that the force's size should be reduced by 4,500 officers." - why was this the case?
"the Royal Ulster Constabulary had a 9–1" - the hyphen should be a en dash per MOS:DASH
The % symbol is better off written as per cent per MOS:PERCENT
The acronyms of the Gaelic Athletic Association should be in brackets


### References
References 5, 7, 18, 19, 21 and 22 are missing the publication date
Reference 10 is missing the second author of the article
References 13 and 21 are missing the author(s) of the pieces
The publication date for Reference 20 is incorrect
Am going to put the review on hold to allow the nominator to address/query the points raised above. MWright96 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@MWright96: Thank you for the review. I have made amendments based upon your comments so it should be good for another look now.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@The C of E: I am happy with the changes and will promote this article to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)