Talk:Southern Railway Spencer Shops/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Images and infobox look good.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Lead way too long at about a third of the article

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ignoring the website that took this text from here,

copyvio check is clear

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• However, at least four sentences aren't cited inline, and some of the refs seem to cover whole paragraphs, so I don't know if OR might be a problem - if there's a source for everything, can inline citations be added?

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've actually removed some of this, it was unnecessary over-explaining of the text before.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• These two "back shops" service centers could not handle this extensive service need.[2] These facilities were "antiquated and poorly equipped and not sufficient for their purposes," Samuel Spencer said. could be made a bit clearer. Also, redundant use of 'these'.
•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Secret negotiations, building at a new location" is not a good nor standard header

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Spencer Shops had a small army of thousands of workers. There were skilled workers as well as engineers, firemen, brakemen, and conductors. Many of these settled down in the area and the town of Spencer was formed. sounds like a story opening - could it be tweaked to have a more encyclopedic tone?

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• At some point in the article body it should have a wikilink to whichever Shop is most appropriate - workshop or machinery?

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Made some edits for style, rest of prose looks fine

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall

• on hold Few things. Kingsif (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look now. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Fixed headers. Ref format could be standardized, but seems good enough to pass. Kingsif (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)