Talk:Gants Hill tube station/GA1
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Vincent60030 in topic GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 21:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 21:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Initial comments
edit- Lead
- Unlink London – see WP:OVERLINK
Done - I question whether "pedestrian subway" is a term that readers will require to be linked.
- Done ah seems like I overlooked hehe VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- "distinct architecture" – I think you probably mean "distinctive architecture" Done
- Unlink London – see WP:OVERLINK
- Location
- "The station has taken its name from the Gants Hill roundabout itself" – a strange construction. I assume it means that the station takes its name from the Gants Hill roundabout – no "itself" wanted.
- Done I actually meant that the roundabout itself is named Gants Hill too...but find it odd too so removed. VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- "In fact, the ticket hall is …" – "in fact" serves no purpose here that I can see. Done
- I have no idea why the last sentence of the section is there: it is not in English and is not of much interest.
- Do you mean the English is broken? VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- The sentence reads. "The Savoy Cinema, then renamed to the Odeon, was once located near the station, but demolished in 2003." I think it is supposed to mean "The Savoy Cinema, later renamed the Odeon, was located near the station, but was demolished in 2003," but even if thus rewritten I can't imagine what possible interest this fact will be to anyone reading about the tube station. Tim riley talk 17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Done Alright, removed. VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 03:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- The sentence reads. "The Savoy Cinema, then renamed to the Odeon, was once located near the station, but demolished in 2003." I think it is supposed to mean "The Savoy Cinema, later renamed the Odeon, was located near the station, but was demolished in 2003," but even if thus rewritten I can't imagine what possible interest this fact will be to anyone reading about the tube station. Tim riley talk 17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Do you mean the English is broken? VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- "The station has taken its name from the Gants Hill roundabout itself" – a strange construction. I assume it means that the station takes its name from the Gants Hill roundabout – no "itself" wanted.
- The History section seems to me admirable.
- Done tried "neutralising" it. VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- The Design section, give or take a pointless link to "architect" and clunky false title for "architect Charles Holden", who would be a lot better for a definite article, is fine in the first two paragraphs. The last paragraph would be better if written in English, which the second sentence is not.
- Done VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- The paragraph is still not in English. I think it is intended to mean something like: "Gants Hill is the only Underground station with a concourse designed by Holden that has no surface buildings. Unlike Redbridge it is not Grade II listed, although its distinctive architectural qualities have gained public support for listing."
- Done decided to adopt that since I don't have a better phrasing. :/ VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 03:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- The paragraph is still not in English. I think it is intended to mean something like: "Gants Hill is the only Underground station with a concourse designed by Holden that has no surface buildings. Unlike Redbridge it is not Grade II listed, although its distinctive architectural qualities have gained public support for listing."
Over to you. Tim riley talk 22:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Summary
editI think this is fine now. It contains all the relevant information, as far as I can see. It is well and widely sourced (though why two books are listed under "References" rather than with the others under "Sources" isn't obvious) and the grammar has been sorted out. Meets the GA criteria, in my view. So:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- 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:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Well done! Tim riley talk 11:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the comprehensive review! Road to more articles...meanwhile moving to DYK =D VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 17:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.