Talk:Gloucester Road tube station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 10:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good Job.

To Work On list (specifics)

• 1B: Multiple references with same name, diff page numbers. Combine into one and list page numbers like: 1, 4-8, 10, 12-13 etc.
  • There were a couple of references that were duplicated which have now been combined. All the others need to remain as they are because the grouping together would be too broad.--DavidCane (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Understood.

• 3A: Anything about costs or what type of vehicles operate or what models?
  • Costs of what? If you mean the cost of construction, the sources do not have any information on this. If you mean costs of tickets, these are dealt with in other articles such as London Underground ticketing, Oyster card or Travelcard.
  • Details of the trains operating on the three lines through the station are provided in the line articles where it is more appropriate.--DavidCane (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added some details of the trains to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Please do not change the status of the criterion, the reviewer will change that their selfs.