Talk:Yatton railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 19:01, 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: two found and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 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 station was originally built, as the name suggests, to serve passengers for Clevedon, who would travel on by road. " I don't see how the name Yatton suggests this. Perhaps add "as originally named". Done

   Fixed. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   There are a number of stray single sentences, which should be consolidated into paragraphs.

   Better? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   I can still see several stray sentences. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   There is not a single lone sentence left that I can see. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Generally prose is good and apart from the points above, compliant with key elements of the MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Two dead links found as noted above.

   I have fixed the SCRP one, but have not done the other - I think this is a temporary problem with APCOA's website, as the link is still listed when you search for Yatton, but redirects to their homepage. A brief check of other car parks also revealed the same behaviour. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Otherwise references well formatted, appear to be RS, no evidence of OR, spotchecks support statements.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage, but not sure if the Incidents section is necessary. These are minor incidents, not of any encyclopaedic nature. Done

   Not entirely happy about removing it, but I accept they're fairly minor. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Fair and 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 from Commons, correctly tagged and licensed and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for the fixes, I am happy to list this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)