Talk:Montpelier railway station/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 16:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks as though Mattbuck has put some hard work into preparing this article during May, so I will be happy to review it for GA. My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response. Rcsprinter¹²³ (shout) @ 16:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent news! -mattbuck (Talk) 19:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall comments

This looks like it could very well pass. There are a number of sections, all well-wikilinked and illustrated and relevant to the subject, and following the structure which is standard for UK station articles. For references, there seems to be an adequate number at first glance, backed up with some further reading, so the content is largely verifiable. However, Checklinks reports rather a number of dead external links, which will all require fixing before the nomination can be approved.

Section analysis

After the review has been conducted, editors addressing the article may mark individual points below off by placing {{done}} after the item.

Infobox

• Does it matter that unit 143621 was in this photo? Why can't it be just a Pacer?

  Not especially, it's just the way I wrote the caption. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Description

• Could provide a little more detail on where Ashley is within Bristol, like "central" or "eastern"

   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Is it known why a platform was abandoned in 1970? Could this be mentioned?

  It's mentioned in the history section, that was when they reduced the line to single track. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• "A rise of almost 100%" - this means that in 2002/03, pretty much nobody used the station? Would some more precise figures be available for insertion here?

  "A rise of almost 100%" is worked on a baseline of 100%. Precise figures are indeed available, Current figures are in the infobox. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Services

• I think it is too much to put the fare prices on to the article, especially as they are outdated and therefore not useful to anyone. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.

   Done - That's not been an issue in any other GA, I thought it was actually an interesting snippet, but I shall remove it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Joint railway era

• Citation number 8 is in twice at the end of the second paragraph ([8][8])

   Done - How curious. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• The caption of the image uses an improper sentence; a noun has to be doing the verb. "Looking east along the platform." may be better connected to the next sentence via a semicolon or somesuch, otherwise remove "looking"

  It's perfectly acceptable to have such a sentence, and "East along the platform" would make no sense whatsoever. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Any clue why the committee "refused to build a new booking office" and how they "improve the waiting rooms"?

  It's not mentioned in the reference. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

British Rail and Privatisation

• No-one says aegis. I had to look it up to check the meaning. Could a more often-used, more understandable term be used instead, such as umbrella, charge, keeping, responsibility?

  I say aegis (in about eight other GAs!) Still,  Done -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

---

No other issues

References

The number of each reference I give is correct as of revision 670220214; if any have been added since then it will have moved numbers.

If there is no comment on a reference assume I have reviewed it and found no problems.

• Is an A-Z map, Ref 1, the best source to use to prove that "the surrounding area is mostly residential, with shops on the nearby A38 Cheltenham Road"? It's also a hard book to look at, unless you buy one.

  I understand the issue, but honestly I don't know what else to use. There's no simcity view with residential in green and commercial in blue. As for it being hard to obtain, that is not a particular issue I think, given that the other references are to magazines or books which you'd have to buy. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 2 does not support the statement that "Help points, giving next train information, were installed in 2010" nor that "The help points were stolen in early 2010, but have since been replaced."

  First bit  Done, the second bit gets the "stolen" from ref 35/36, that they were replaced is implied by the fact they are there now (ref 2). -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I can't find "10 miles 55 chains" in either Ref 3 or Ref 4

  You need to do some arithmetic for it, working around the junction between AMB and CNX. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Refs 5, 16, 23, 43 and 48 do not seem to support any claim

  5 is for mileages; 16 supports the classes; 23 states it was replaced; 43-45 are general references of the deal; ditto 47-49. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 9 does not explicitly state that the station building now is a fireplace showroom. Needs a better one if possible.

  The address says "old station", that seems pretty explicit. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Refs 10 and 11 are dead

   Done The bastards changed the url. Fixed on all articles. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 13 (page 29) seems to mention W6A as the freight gauge (not "loading gauge") whereas the article says W6.

  I got W6 from figure 8 (page 5 or 7). -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• The best thing I can find on Ref 13 to back up "less than 3 million train tonnes" is a map on pg 3 on which the line is shown in the colour of "up to 5 million tonnes". So where has "3 million" come from?

   Done I think that must be a typo. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the sourcing for "In the 2013/14 financial" down to "rise in usage of the Severn Beach Line". I can see that Ref 15 gives the 120,000 figure for year 13/14, but I can't see anything in Ref 14 to compare it that to. If I add the entrances and exits in that source, I get 62,005, which I guess is the basis for "increase of almost 100%"? However, neither of these sources back up "1592nd busiest station in the country and the fifth busiest within the Bristol unitary authority area".

  You need to sort it by total entrances and exits to get rank, then filter for bristol unitary authority. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 21 doesn't really mention

  Could you please expand on this comment? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry, I must've started writing something and left it. Ignore this point. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sermonise) @ 10:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Refs 31, 32, 34, 36 are dead

   Done - Another lot who changed their urls... -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can put a tick after or strike through any items which have been addressed that would be useful. That is all. I am placing the review  On hold until the issues listed above are fixed, and then we can look at the GA criteria. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (face) @ 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Looks like this passes all the criteria. Nomination passed! Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) @ 16:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rcsprinter123, though I confess I got a bit worried when legobot said this had failed! Stupid bot... -mattbuck (Talk) 17:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that's because I updated the article history template on the article's talkpage rather than add a GA template, must be a glitch in the bot. Congrats. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spout) @ 20:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)