Talk:British Rail Class 458/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 19:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Starting review

Hello, @Pkbwcgs: I am happy to review this article and hope to begin shortly. I have submitted Bury F.C. for review and I agree that I should do two reviews myself to help with the backlog. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The article was created in 2004 and is now 21kb after just over 500 edits. Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#Immediate_failures is inapplicable here and a full review can proceed. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: Thanks for taking up the review. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

I have to say that, because of my interest in history, I'm a steam enthusiast in railway terms and take little notice of disiesels or electrics. Even so, I do understand everything that this article is saying. I make that point because many people, especially if non-British, will not readily understand it. My interpretation of the GA/FA criteria is that a good article is just that and doesn't have to be brilliant, but a featured article is a brilliant one. This isn't brilliant by any means but it is unquestionably good. I could make some minor adjustments here and there in terms of wording and grammar but they would only amount to personal preference so, given that there are no actual mistakes, I'm leaving well alone.

If there is an intention to nominate the article for feature status eventually, I'd say there is a lot of work to be done and the priority must be to express things in layman's terms. The article is currently just over 21kb and I think it would no harm at all if that size was doubled in order to provide more background and explanation. At present, it's a good article for those who know the subject and are familiar with the British railway system but it doesn't really help the uninitiated.

That said, it is a good article and it ticks all the boxes in the GA criteria. It's well-written, it doesn't say "awesome", the intro is fit for purpose, it's well structured, I see no problems or issues arising from the sources or illustrations and the latter are very good indeed. As a result, therefore, I think the article definitely qualifies for GA status and I'm passing it. Well done and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: Thanks for the review. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, the article ticks all the GA criteria boxes. At the risk of being pedantic, I'll list these with appropriate comments:

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. No problems at all. It is very well written albeit too technical for the uninitiated.
2. Well written: it complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Given that the article is only 21kb, a three paragraph introduction suffices and it summarises the narrative quite well. The layout and structure of the article are fine. There are no "words to watch". It is non-fiction and there are no lists, unless the small Fleet details table is considered one and that is well-constructed.
3. Verifiable with no original research: contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline. There is a two-column reflist in which every reference is meaningful and standard.
4. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc. I do not see a problem with any of the sources used, though I have to assume good faith in some cases which I either cannot check or know little about. They are all informative and clearly serious about their subject-matter. There is no reason, in my opinion, to challenge any of the information in the article.
5. No original research. None that is in any way evident given the extensive use of sources.
6. No copyright violations or plagiarism. Again, no evidence of anything untoward.
7. Broad in its coverage. Although it is a relatively short article, it covers considerable ground in summary form without delving into minutiae, and it is entirely within scope. In terms of coverage, the article scores very highly.
8. Neutral. Entirely so and there is no problem with the NPOV requirement.
9. Stable. There was no evidence of dispute when the review was performed and the recent storm in a teacup is minor with no significant changes being done.
10. Illustrated, if possible. The images are one of the best features as they are both striking and relevant. All captions are appropriate and provide useful information. I am not aware of any copyright infringements and the images are all fair use at least.

I can only repeat that, while the article is by no means a feature candidate, in my opinion it is most certainly a good article and that is why I have passed it. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)