Talk:Clifton Down railway station/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Rcsprinter123 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 10:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks a neat little article which has been improved greatly since 2006, when it was started as a tiny little stub by Mazzy. The nominator Mattbuck is a major contributor to the page, who has also improved it greatly. 43 references is a good number and none are threatened by link rot.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Good prose in general and word variety. One or two more wikilinks perhaps in some sections but good.
- Would you care to comment on which sections? I think it's already way over the proscribed 1 link per topic (stupid rule) as I find 1 link per topic per section more sensible. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking generally Description, and some middle parts. I only mentioned this because it seemed a little bare but again I'm not enforcing it. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 13:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Would you care to comment on which sections? I think it's already way over the proscribed 1 link per topic (stupid rule) as I find 1 link per topic per section more sensible. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good prose in general and word variety. One or two more wikilinks perhaps in some sections but good.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- No refs in the lead, but no great matter. All other statements are well backed up by reliable sources; note lots were added recently in June 2012. Original research free is also what we like to see.
- Previous GA reviews have complained about references in the lead, so I stopped putting them in, on the basis that they were already in the article elsewhere. I'd be more than happy to put them back if that's appropriate. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Again, this isn't a major concern and in general references aren't placed in the lead section. If you like you may place them on some very main points there but I'm not really bothered about those. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 13:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Previous GA reviews have complained about references in the lead, so I stopped putting them in, on the basis that they were already in the article elsewhere. I'd be more than happy to put them back if that's appropriate. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- No refs in the lead, but no great matter. All other statements are well backed up by reliable sources; note lots were added recently in June 2012. Original research free is also what we like to see.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Certainly 3a, the station itself current-day and also some history is provided. However, does it go off too much on the privatization part? Mostly relevant and won't affect the outcome but just noting.
- You could be right about that, however the second paragraph (last of section) is all definitely relevant as about the station specifically, and the penultimate I think is necessary to provide some context. It's a shame that early privatisation and the BR days sort of fall into a dead zone - too recent to have decent books about it, but too long ago to be accessible via digital news. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly, that sort of stuff is hard to get references on. Leave anything you like and perhaps it's a good thing - readers could like some more background information? Rcsprinter (rap) @ 13:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- There's nothing obvious to remove really. I'm working on the line article in a sandbox so that will be improved for more background info, but that's a long way from being complete. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly, that sort of stuff is hard to get references on. Leave anything you like and perhaps it's a good thing - readers could like some more background information? Rcsprinter (rap) @ 13:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- You could be right about that, however the second paragraph (last of section) is all definitely relevant as about the station specifically, and the penultimate I think is necessary to provide some context. It's a shame that early privatisation and the BR days sort of fall into a dead zone - too recent to have decent books about it, but too long ago to be accessible via digital news. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly 3a, the station itself current-day and also some history is provided. However, does it go off too much on the privatization part? Mostly relevant and won't affect the outcome but just noting.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Good history here; edit war free.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Plenty of images illustrating the topics. Not quite one to every section but I like it how it is. The image of multiple trains in the "Future" section may need enlarging but otherwise size and captions very good.
- Well, the first sections are tricky to illustrate due to the infobox, and images on the left always seems to make stuff a bit messy. That and I didn't see much else that needed illustrating. The future one IMO is fine when defaulting at 300px, if people use 220px or something I can't speak to that, but I think the advantages of having all the images neatly lined up probably outweigh the problems. Even if small, you can see it's 4 trains, and can click to enlarge. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Really don't mind here. Only a note again that I noticed and won't be essential to the review. Is there anything else you need to say? Rcsprinter (rap) @ 13:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, not really. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Plenty of images illustrating the topics. Not quite one to every section but I like it how it is. The image of multiple trains in the "Future" section may need enlarging but otherwise size and captions very good.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Great article here, keep on going. If you want to discuss anything please do and it's quite close to being promoted.
- Pass/Fail:
Promoted. Rcsprinter (state the obvious (or not)) @ 11:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)