Talk:Bedminster railway station/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Bob1960evens in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 15:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will review. I will make comments as I go. Please indicate what has been fixed below the relevant comments. I am not in favour or striking stuff out when it has been fixed, as it makes the review more difficult to read at a later date. Suggest using   Done, or somesuch, if need be. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Preliminaries
No dead links or redirected refs found.
  • From Description, I would add four tracks, two island platforms, minimal facilities. From History, I would add total of 9 operators, 3 since privatisation. From future I would add campaign for electification, possibility of more trains if Portishead goes ahead.
Description
Services
History
  • Another 0 miles. See above.   Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "four-tracked, replaced by". Suggest "four-tracked, and were replaced by" to aid flow.   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "the GWR became the Western Region". You have not introduced the abbreviation. Needs a (GWR) immediately after the full name two paras above.   Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "The signal box ceased use ...". Suggest "The signal box ceased to be used ...".   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Refs for last paragraph are a little tenuous, since they only cover the final part. There is no mention of Wales and West in the refs, and ref 12 refers to FirstGroup, which is not mentioned in the article.
    Yeah, that is a bit of a problem. Wales and West was in the 90s, before significant online news, and it's quite hard to find references to it. The best online source I can find is Frith, Malcolm (November 1999). "Track record: West and South-West". BBC. Retrieved 9 June 2012., but none of the sources are exactly authoritative
  • I think the Historical Railways chart probably needs an additional entry on the end to cover First Great Westen / First Group.
    I did consider that, but thought that the FGW period isn't historical, it's current, and so it wasn't necessary to duplicate information from the services seciton. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok, we'll leave it as is.
Future
  • "put out for tendering" probably ought to be "put out to tender", and could be linked to Request for tender.   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "the coming upgrade" could do with expanding just a little. "expected to be completed by 2017" or somesuch, again so the reader can understand if it is current.   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "21st Century upgrading ..." is wikilinked twice in successive paragraphs. Link on first occurrence only.   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "According to the Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy ...". The information following this is difficult to understand. Can it be explained it plainer English? Is capacity to do with how many trains run on the line, and whether more could be, and loading to do with how many passengers are on those trains? And if it is running at 130 per cent, what does this mean? That 30 per cent of the scheduled trains will not actually run? That passengers will have to sit on the roofs (a la India)? It needs to be explained in a way that Joe Public can understand, without needing to be a route utilisation engineer.   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "If the Portishead Branch Line is reopened ...". With three refs, it must be possible to expand this a little, so that it is not a single sentence paragraph, and to give it a bit of context. In the absence of a route diagram, we need to know where it is, and when it might be opened, or if it is only a pipe dream.   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Incidents
  • This is five paragraphs, mostly single sentences. Have a go at expanding the text a little, to join seemingly random events into some sort of cohesive whole. I would suggest two paragraphs as a maximum.
    I've combined it a bit, but with rather disparate incidents it's quite difficult to weave a single narrative. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Much better.
Comprehensive?
  • It would be good to have a sentence or two on Bedminster, since that is the place that the station serves. Is it large/small, is the station near it/miles away, etc. I note that the Bedminster article mentions that the suburb is also served by Parson Street station, which would be worth mentioning.
    Done my best, but you can't get actual information on the population of Bedminster since Bedminster is not solely contained within the council ward of Bedminster, which is mainly served by Parson Street. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Much better.
The formal bit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    See comments above
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    See comments above
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    See comments above
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Since you are making good progress on fixing the points raised, I will not put the article on hold yet. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply