Talk:Redland railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 19:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead does not fully summarize the article, the history section is in adequately summarized.

   Is that better? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Ok, that will do. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Prose is good, I made a few minor copy-edits.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well referenced, no sign of OR, spotchecks show that citations support statements.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The incidents section appears to be of no encyclopaedic value. Otherwise good coverage.

   I accept the incidents section is not broad coverage, since I have not searched through 100 years of newspapers to try and find references to the station. But I think that dead bodies are quite likely relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, but are these incidents of any real relevance? Would they be included in an article on say London Paddington station? Or are they merely things that happened at Redland, but could have happened anywhere. How are they relevant to this railway station? I shall ask for a second opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

   Sod it, section nuked. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Unbiased.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images all from Commons, licensed and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for a few minor issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   The lead is improved, but I am unhappy about the trivia. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for the improvements, I am now happy to list this. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)