Talk:Stapleton Road railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. While you wait, why not spare a thought for the other nominees, and conduct a review or two yourself? This provides excellent insight into the reviewing process, is enjoyable and interesting. A list can be found here. Wikipedia needs more reviewers! Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As nominator, I do not object, and indeed am happy to see someone take the time to review it. I look forward to your comments. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Clear and well-written; some minor changes suggested (See below)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

This article is very well-written and wonderful to read. This is the first article I've reviewed about stations, and is surprisingly quite engaging! I have a few minor suggestions below, but in the main comment you and other authors for creating such a well-reading article.

• No problems with image copyrights found
• Sources verified
• No issues with grammar or spelling

Minor suggestions:

• I suggest you add the "As of" tag in several sections, as several facets of the station may be prone to change, and I wouldn't want to promote an article to GA in 2013 if it is likely to be reassessed because it is no longer accurate or timely in 2014.

  Done -mattbuck (Talk) 00:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest include an {{As of|2013}} after "The station has two...", as the rest of the statements may be prone to change if timetables / franchise / etc. changes

  Done -mattbuck (Talk) 00:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest "mainly a train every 40 " mainly -> namely

  Done -mattbuck (Talk) 00:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Again suggest an "As of" here: "Facilities at the station are minimal " and here "It is not electrified, though it is planned ", and in the first paragraph of "Services"

  Done -mattbuck (Talk) 00:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Description section is very clear and good to read,

  Cool -mattbuck (Talk) 00:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• "six trains each way " six -> 6 for consistency

  Done -mattbuck (Talk) 00:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• "By 1947, just before the start of the British Rail era, there were 33 services each direction between Avonmouth and Temple Meads, “ suggest add "daily" (if appropriate)

  Done -mattbuck (Talk) 00:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• "the use of illegal drugs" may need "within the station premises" for clarity

  Done -mattbuck (Talk) 00:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

None of these issues are enough to prevent nomination, but I'd like some addressed if possible before I promote. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm very glad you enjoyed yourself reading this, it was by and large quite fun to write (and a nice way to kill time when otherwise idle at work). I've made the suggested changes, and look forward to your comments. Since you found this engaging, perhaps if you're in the neighbourhood sometime you should poke your head out of the train and say "oooh, I reviewed an article about this place." -mattbuck (Talk) 01:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That'd be delightful! I may need to wait some time for antipodean locomotively-interested editors to arrive in my corner of the old empire for that =P. With no other issues have promoted the article. Well done! --LT910001 (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)