Talk:Capitol Hill station/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) 00:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly do the review for this article. The Capital Hill Station is a train station article with lots of fantastic information. It gives me a lot of information about the station, its background, and its modern impact. The overall format is great. The infobox has good information and the intro paragraph provides enough to keep the article strong. AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: This looks to be your first try at a GA review. Unfortunately, I can't accept this review as being comprehensive and faithful to the GA criteria, given how there was no feedback whatsoever. I am requesting a second opinion from another reviewer. Sounder Bruce 02:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce: This is my first try at a GA review. I am trying to reduce the wait and backlog of GA nominations. I apologize if this review did not meet your expectations. AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Good Sentence Structure

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Good Formatting
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Excellent referencing

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Once again, Excellent job

C. It contains no original research:
About each sentence has a reference

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No violations found
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
On topic with good detail

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Stays focused while still including immersive background
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Very Neutral
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Very Stable
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
All have fair use

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
All are relevant and provide captions
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Excellent work, You passed! AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion[edit]

I will be happy to offer a second opinion. I have completed 48 GA reviews, and understand the GA criteria. Overall, I think your comments about User:AmericanAir88's review are a little unfortunate, since the quality of the text is the best I have seen in the 24 reviews I have completed this year. I spotted just three minor issues, which I will document in a bit. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I actually just completed a review of another article and it turned out very well! This article was hard to review as I found no errors! AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

with the latter being chosen a 1995 ballot measure. This seems to have a word or two missing, as it doesn't quite make sense to me.
due to unrealistic estimates done during previous stages of planning. Suggest "done" is not a good word choice here. Suggest "made".
use of horizontal steel [russes that span 45 feet... Typo in "trusses".

If it was my review, I would probably suggest that the lead could do with being just a little longer, maybe two more sentences, to adequately summarise the main points of the article, but I know that this issue is a bit subjective. It ought to mention that the station is in the US, since Wikipedia is read by international audiences. In terms of the tone of the article and the requirement to be broad in context, it does an excellent job. I have not checked the references in detail, as I am assuming that User:AmericanAir88 has done so. I checked three at random, and in each case they supported the text as written. Subject to the three trivial points above, and the mention of US, I endorse AmericanAir88's review, and think that the article deserves to be promoted to GA. As I am only offering a second opinion, I will leave AmericanAir88 to wrap the thing up. Well done everyone, and keep up the high standards. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Bob1960evens for your Second Opinion. I will wrap this up. SounderBruce the floor is yours for your opinions on the Second Opinion. After that the result will be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanAir88 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob1960evens: Thanks for your review. I have fixed the three items on your list and expanded the lead's second paragraph a bit, to include details from less-covered sections. @AmericanAir88: I hope your future GA reviews are more thorough, as some of these typos jump off the page once they've been read over. GA reviews are completely optional, so if you don't feel like you can do a comprehensive job, then it might be best to read other reviews and perhaps send your own article for review and learn from there. Sounder Bruce 23:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce Thank you for your comments. You passed. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @AmericanAir88: Please wrap up the review by adding the {{good article}} template and updating the list of Good articles. Sounder Bruce 22:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @SounderBruce: All done AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @AmericanAir88: You haven't added it to the good articles list. Please remember to follow every instruction on the page. Sounder Bruce 01:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @SounderBruce: All done Officially. Sorry for the inconvenience. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.