Talk:Stapleton Road railway station/GA1

Latest comment: 10 years ago by LT910001 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. While you wait, why not spare a thought for the other nominees, and conduct a review or two yourself? This provides excellent insight into the reviewing process, is enjoyable and interesting. A list can be found here. Wikipedia needs more reviewers! Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

As nominator, I do not object, and indeed am happy to see someone take the time to review it. I look forward to your comments. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

  • Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
  • If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
  • Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

edit
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Clear and well-written; some minor changes suggested (See below)
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

edit

This article is very well-written and wonderful to read. This is the first article I've reviewed about stations, and is surprisingly quite engaging! I have a few minor suggestions below, but in the main comment you and other authors for creating such a well-reading article.

  • No problems with image copyrights found
  • Sources verified
  • No issues with grammar or spelling

Minor suggestions:

None of these issues are enough to prevent nomination, but I'd like some addressed if possible before I promote. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm very glad you enjoyed yourself reading this, it was by and large quite fun to write (and a nice way to kill time when otherwise idle at work). I've made the suggested changes, and look forward to your comments. Since you found this engaging, perhaps if you're in the neighbourhood sometime you should poke your head out of the train and say "oooh, I reviewed an article about this place." -mattbuck (Talk) 01:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
That'd be delightful! I may need to wait some time for antipodean locomotively-interested editors to arrive in my corner of the old empire for that =P. With no other issues have promoted the article. Well done! --LT910001 (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply