Talk:Green Park tube station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. Comments to follow a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 12:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments

I'm struggling to find anything to moan about.

• Number ranges needing an en-dash instead of the hyphen according to the Manual of Style:
  • 5-7 Dover Street (twice)
  • 2-2½ minutes
  • 2½-3½ minutes
  • 100-135 seconds
  • Badsey-Ellis 2005, pp. 144-147
    • All done.--DavidCane (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Jubilee line section
  • in the first para I don't think the Fleet line should be italicised.
  • "Restrictions on the availability of funding" – rather a long-winded way of saying lack of money.
    • Done and done.--DavidCane (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• In popular culture
  • In this section (which to my mind adds nothing of value to the article, but that's just my opinion) "east-bound" has acquired a redundant hyphen.
    • Hyphen removed.--DavidCane (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    • It does not add much to the article, but if it's not included, it will almost certainly get added back by someone, probably with incorrect information. The source, Nick Cooper is reliable and a Wikipedian as well.--DavidCane (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Notes
  • I'm not sure I quite understand who "they" are in Note a.
    • Clarified "they" are Speyer Brothers.--DavidCane (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• References
  • I wonder how Peter Berthoud's blog can be regarded as a WP:RS.
    • There should have been another ref in before that one from the architects themselves which provides all of the information as well. I've put that in. Berthoud's blog is included mostly for it images.--DavidCane (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

These minor points apart I think the article is of GA quality (and highly enjoyable too). Perhaps you'd look at my few quibbles before I cut the ceremonial ribbon. – Tim riley talk 12:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Tim. Glad you liked it. I'll put this in for a DYK shortly and probably take it to FA. It will be the first I have done in six years, so I need to check how much the FA process has changed in that time. First though, I'm working in user space on a major update on Charing Cross tube station which has a similar convoluted history.--DavidCane (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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 illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Excellent stuff. Please keep me posted when you go to FAC. I don't think you'll find FAC much changed in the last six years. Personally, I always like to go there with the reassurance of a peer review under my belt, but to each his own. (As for Charing Cross, unlike the pleasing and traveller-friendly Bond Street, it's a hell hole, and I don't envy you the task of writing about it.) Tim riley talk 14:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)