Talk:Kipling station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 00:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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:

   See comment section below. Issues with references not fixed within 7 days. See last comment in comment section for more info.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   See comment section below. Good.

   C. No original research:

   See comment section below. Good.

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article will be on hold for 7 days to allow the issues below to be addressed.--Dom497 (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC) See last comment below for reason of failing the article.--Dom497 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "Currently it serves the high density residential and commercial developments that are being built, while acting as a hub for commuter travel", needs a ref.

• "East of the station towards Islington, the line continues on the surface alongside the railway right-of-way which paralleling Dundas Street at a distance. After crossing over Bloor Street to the north side, it takes the alignment parallel to Bloor as the line goes underground", needs a ref.

• The "Service" section of the article needs refs.
  • Done - Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Not quite done yet. Some of the refs are missing the publisher, access date/retrieved date, and date (if applicable).--Dom497 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I added a reference to the "Service" section which is what this paragraph refers to. Anything else noted above, I am leaving to you and the nominator, who seems totally disinterested. That's too bad. The focus of what I do is not based on any need to be judged or rated. Thanks for what you have done here anyway. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Its been 7 days and I am failing the article for the following reason: Issues with the references have not been fixed and are not actively being worked on (it is not my job to fix this issue). Once the refs are fixed, re-nominated this article and let me know on my talk page. I will be glad to review this article again once the issue is fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)