Talk:London Underground departmental stock/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 19:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well-written: the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

I've made a few tweaks. Tests of copyright were fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You should check my edits to ensure I haven't introduced any errors but the prose is fine.

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

Lead and layout both complied with; others n/a.

Verifiable with no original research:

Referencing all fine.

Broad in its coverage

It passes this criterion at GA ("the main aspects of the topic") but I think it could go further. The article, at 2,100 words, has the room to explain more about the stock which gets a fairly cursory mention (what distinguished 62 stock, for example). It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Fine

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

Fine

Illustrated, if possible, by images:images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Fine

I am therefore passing the article without further comment. If issues have arisen because of my changes, I'm sure they are easily resolved. Congratulations Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)