Talk:Ebbw Valley Railway/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Pyrotec in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Inital comments

edit

This looks to be quite a reasonable article that should make GA this time around.

I have a few minor comments and at this stage I'm mostly going to highlight "problems". I'm leaving the WP:Lead until last; otherwise, if I don't make a comment here about a particular section that probably means that I regard it as being OK. I will provide an overall summary at the end. Pyrotec (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • History -
  • Ref 5 (Daniels & Dench 1973) is a book, so you aught to provide a page number, or numbers, such as in refs 9 and 10.

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

This article is clearly about the post-Beaching line. Its history under GWR and BR represents about three quarters of one paragraph.

No further comments.

Overall sumary

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A comprehensive article on a post-Beaching railway line.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    Well referenced.
    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:  
    Well referenced.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    Well referenced.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Congratulations on producing a fine article. I'm awarding it GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply