Talk:Tunnel Railway/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Pyrotec in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Starting GAreview.Pyrotec (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
WP:GAN On Hold - article is not stable.Pyrotec (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
How is "article not stable"? It's had precisely five edits in the past month, all of them by myself and all of them minor rewordings; come to that, there are only seven edits in the entire history not made on the day of its creation, and there's not been a single non-minor edit in the entire history other than the initial single-edit creation. It's possibly the most stable article on the entire project. – iridescent 19:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi Iridescent. It was submitted to WP:GAN on 13 March 2009 and I read it in full on Friday evening (27th March 2009). I noticed from my watch list earlier this evening, when I was intending to do the review, that you had undertaken five edits this afternoon. As you say these are the first changes since 1 March 2009. I have no objections at all to you editing the article; but I don't see why I should review an article that is in the middle of being changed. It was flagged up as being under review when you started copyediting it. The criteria are here: WP:Good article criteria, but I'm happy to accept that (lack of) stability is not due to content dispute and/or edit wars. Let me know when you have finished editing it and I will restart the GAN review.Pyrotec (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
(Cut and pasted from a longer reply here)
The only changes were ultra-cosmetic – splitting the "previous stations" into subheadings to stop it being so dominant, and rewording one sentence to avoid the problem-word "economical"; aside from that there was no substantive change at all. Sorry if I came across as snappy, but you can rest assured that the article is stable – as I said, aside from the initial creation, there's not a single change in the entire history that isn't cosmetic. – iridescent 23:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA review

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A interesting article on a relatively unknown railway system.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

This article has been rated as GA.Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply