Talk:Leyland Landtrain/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 12:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello simongraham, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination which I'll present shortly. Hope my feedback will be helpful to you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  simongraham, the article is pretty much a good article although some fixes are needed, see the comments below. I have also left some suggestions along with it which you can adopt if you want to. On a general note, I personally think the prose overall could be better, it reads a bit informal at times. In any case, good work on the article, I'll promote it once the fixes are done. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead shouldn't need to mention "in Leyland, Lancashire." Seems to imply that the truck was solely produced in Leyland. Was it even produced in Leyland? If there are other plants which produced the trucks or the CKDs, it should probably be mentioned in the production section. I would suggest splitting the lead into two paragraphs as well.
• There is a stray "[" after Scrammel in the design and development section. Also, probably should state the entire name Scrammell Lorries. Too many also's in the first paragraph of the section which makes the sentences sound awkward. I would suggest rephrasing.
• Many of the sources don't appear to be open access but I haven't seen any instance of original research in the ones that I could access so I'm going to assume that there are no issues with original research.

  @Tayi Arajakate: Thank you for your comments and thorough review. I have made the amendments that you have helpfully suggested. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Simongraham, I don't see any other issues in the article so I'm going to promote it now. Although one question, is "Lorriesx" a typo or was it the name of the company back then? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension: The comprehension is good.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Minor copyediting is need, otherwise the prose is adequate.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article follows the manual of style.	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article is verifiable.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article has in-line citations for all the lines in the body.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources used are reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violations or plagiarism was found.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article is adequately comprehensive.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article appears to be broad enough in its coverage.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article is focused and does not deviate from the subject.	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is neutal.
Pass

Notes	Result
The article is complaint with the policy on neutral point of view.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No recent content disputes, edit warring or major changes.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is adequately illustrated.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The image is tagged with its appropriate copyright status.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Use and captions is appropiate.	Pass