Talk:Worle railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 06:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

1. File:Worle railway station MMB 21 220034.jpg = original image from Commons. Y.
2. File:Worle railway station MMB 09 158952.jpg = original image from Commons. Y.
3. File:First Day at Worle Station.jpg = image from Flickr, hosted at Commons. Appropriately reviewed at Commons. Y.
4. File:Worle railway station MMB 12.jpg = original image from Commons. Y.
5. File:Worle railway station MMB 18.jpg = original image from Commons. Y.

Nice use of original images! — Cirt (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Stability review

1. Upon inspection of article edit history, going back over two months, the article is stable. Y.
2. Looked over talk page edit history going back to 2007, no outstanding issues. Y.

— Cirt (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Please reply, below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 23, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Writing quality is adequate overall, though a few suggestions:
2. Flow could be improved with a bit more subsections.
3. Consider breaking up Services into two sub subsections, keeping the parent sect Services.
4. Suggest also breaking up History into two sub subsections, keeping parent sect History.
5. Lede intro sect: Recommend expanding lede intro sect, per WP:LEAD, summarizing entire article contents so lede intro sect functions adequately as standalone summary of body text of article. Also, suggest having at least two paragraphs for the lede sect.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout, great use of cite formatting.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects, will have to be updated as new events impact subject.

4. Neutral point of view?: Written in neutral tone with matter of fact wording.

5. Article stability? See above, passes here.

6. Images?: See above, passes here.

Great job overall, only a few relatively simple things to address.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

---

NOTE: Please reply, below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding breaking up the history and services sections, I don't see there as being enough content to justify this. There isn't an obvious break point in the services section, and in the history section the only possible break points are after the first paragraph or two from the end, leading to very lopsided sections. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, on 2nd look maybe not the Services sect, but the History sect could be broken to two, yes. — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's six paragraphs, which is not very long, and I honestly cannot see a good break point. Paragraph 1 is a bit of pre-station, paragraph 2 follows from 1 and leads in to 3 - a break point between 2 and 3 would seem weird. Between 3 and 4? That's the main part of the station history. Between 4 and 5? Again, still follows on. Between 5 and 6? That leaves a 1 paragraph section which is bad form. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, no problems. Thank you for the helpful explanation. — Cirt (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What would you suggest be added to the lead section? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll respectfully leave that editorial judgment up to you. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not especially helpful, but tried. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just wanted to see how you would do it, first, before making my own specific recommendations about it. I'll go take another look soon. — Cirt (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You may want to look again at stability requirement. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ulp! Well, that's all that's left at the moment. If you two can demonstrate that whatever issues are amicably resolved, in talk page discussion, I don't see any other outstanding issues. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Stability not in danger, per this DIFF. Therefore, Stability Review portion of GA Review is still passing, per prior review, above. — Cirt (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Passed as GA.

Thanks for being quick and responsive to my recommendations, above, whether that be directly addressing them, or in some cases helpfully explaining a differing opinion.

Either way, most appreciated! :)

Congratulations,

— Cirt (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Congratulations! and thank you Cirt. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)