Jump to content

Talk:British Rail Class 455/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 15:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. 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:
    The dates of the references are presented in at least two different formats - they should be in agreement. Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Adjusted to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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:
    The following references have apparently gone bad:
    Ref #24/raib.gov.uk is dead.
    Ref #2/surreymirror.co.uk is dead. Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea why the Checklinks tool is giving a false positive on Ref #2. All is well, moving on. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    Everything is well-referenced. Shearonink (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Copyvio tool found no problems. Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    This is a straightforward, factual article that maintains a NPOV. Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No edit-warring :). Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    The photos all look fantastic! Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I cannot proceed with this Review until the referencing issues are corrected. Shearonink (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shearonink: Thanks for taking on the review. I have introduced a consistent date format in the references and also fixed the dead link in ref #24; however ref #2 (surreymirror) seems to be live for me. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jcc: I see that Ref 2 is fine. I am passing this article to WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]