Talk:Nailsea and Backwell railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 18:35, 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: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 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):

   In the lead: "The station car park, which is frequently full by 8am on weekdays, ", but in the body: "but this is frequently full by 7:30am on weekdays,". Inconsistency. Done

    Fixed -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   A number of stray sentences would be better consolidated into paragraphs.

   I've done my best, but some things just don't consolidate well, for instance the steam train mentioned in history, or journey times in services. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Well compliance with the MoS on prose style is mandatory for GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Fixed, but for the record I find that this attempt to meet GA criteria has resulted in a less accessible article. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Prose is good and generally consistent with the MoS apart from the short sentences mentioned above.

   I made one copy-edit.[1]

   Oops. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Sources appear RS, spotchecks confirm information, no evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough coverage, not sure if the bus crash and dead body are really needed, but I won't quibble.

   I think that the train fire is probably notable enough but the other incidents are not. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   The attack incidents are notable to my mind, at least one was followed up on in the papers. Bridge strikes are mentioned in at least one other GA, and dead bodies I consider a fairly notable occurrence. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   OK, I will ask for a second opinion on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

   Based on the level of coverage I would say the attack incidents and the train fire are both notable. The dead body probably isn't; I had to take a suicide out of another station GA for lack of notability, and that incident had about the same amount of coverage as the body. Based on coverage alone I would say the bridge strike isn't notable either, but I'd like to know what the other GA with a bridge strike is for comparison's sake. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

   Bedminster railway station, although there were two of them. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

   It seems like both of the bridge strikes at Bedminster affected train service, whereas the one here didn't (one source doesn't even mention the station), so I'd say to take that part out. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

   Not happy about it, but removed. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Good fair coverage, no bias.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable, most edits made by nominator.

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, caption and appropriately licensed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for a few minor issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

   Isues now addressed so I am happy to list this. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)