Talk:Riot shield/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 11:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on. If I'm not back in four days with first comments and suchlike, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Here's my initial thoughts.

I'd have to say the "History" section looks a little short. Haven't you found anything about how the riot shield was introduced into the police forces of Ireland and Europe? Or when they were first produced? It's not a fail point, but it caught my attention.
"A Chief superintendent in the UK stated that while protesters were generally reluctant to assault police" - Just a double-check more than anything. Should "Chief" be capitalised in this instance as it isn't followed by a name and doesn't open the sentence.
None of the webpage citations have accessdates. Can this be rectified?

That's all that caught my attention. Otherwise it's a fairly interesting and well-written article. Putting on hold until issues are addressed or points are explained. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: Thanks for your comments. In reply:

I think I was lucky to find those two sources on riot shields being introduced into England and the Republic of Ireland. I can't seem to find any coverage of when shields were introduced elsewhere. I have found some coverage of when shields were used in Cyprus and Paris, but there's no mention of whether this was the first time they were used there. I've added the new information to the articles. Similarly I've found various sources giving times when riot shields were used in Northern Ireland (1969, 1973 etc [1][2][3]), but again, no coverage of when they were first used.
Fixed.
All the sources with urls used are either offline sources (I.e books and journals) with a url link to a digitised version, or are online sources that have been archived. At a previous FAC another editor said they didn't see the point in me providing accessdates AND archived urls; I'm inclinced to agree with them. Having an archived snapshot completely defeats the purpose of a retrieval date in my opinion. And I don't see much point to providing an accessdate for the offline sources that have been digitised, as even if the digital version goes dead the source in itself will still be completely useable. That being said if you insist on this I'll add retrieval dates without further opposition.

Let me know if you have any further concerns. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points. I'll give this a Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]