Talk:Borders Railway/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 09:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 09:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a very readable and comprehensive article, clearly of GA quality. The only thing I think requires attention before the article is promoted is the rash of WP:OVERLINKs. You shouldn't link to England (MoS: "the names of major geographic features and locations" are not linked), and you have duplicate links to: benefit to cost ratio, Edinburgh City Bypass, 2006 Waverley Railway Act, Newbattle Viaduct, Class 66 528, Newcraighall, Newbattle Viaduct, Scottish Borders Council, Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link, Transport Scotland, passing loops, Stow, Gorebridge, Network Rail, Gorebridge (again), Hawick, Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland and Keith Brown.

A few comments on the prose. Nothing to affect the outcome of the review, but you may like to consider:

• False title
  • You are inconsistent in whether to use the American/tabloidese false title: " when Scottish transport minister Stewart Stevenson" but "According to the Scottish Transport Minister Keith Brown" etc.
• Lead
  • I'm sure you'll be keeping the article up to date, but I feel I must nonetheless mention WP:DATED here: there are places where "to this day", "is scheduled to open", "The timetable will also allow" etc will date very quickly. Where possible, it is safer to replace the prediction "x will happen on y" with the timeless statement "it was announced on z that x would happen on y".
• Tendering process
  • "to be qualified as public expenditure" – does this mean "categorised" or some such?
• Project specifications
  • "over a distance 31 miles" – is there an "of" missing here?
  • "One of the most significant bridges" – what does it signify? A pity to waste a precise word like "significant" as a mere synonym of "important"
  • "which would require works throughout 2013" – oughtn't this to be in the past tense – "which required…"?

Those are my few comments. If you will clear up the overlinks we can proceed to the formalities. – Tim riley talk 10:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I leave some language aspect to my native speaker co-authors. Regarding duplicate links: 2006 Waverley Railway Act - kept, one non-lead occurence; Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link - kept, as repeated after several sections; passing loops - kept in infobox and text. For "is scheduled to open" and such, there are tags in the source text, the new text is already there but commented out.-- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've done my best to improve some of the awkward phrasings. If there are more, please alert me. RGloucester — ☎ 16:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

A fine recruit to the ranks of Good Articles. Tim riley talk 19:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)