Talk:Hawkhurst branch line/GA1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
GA Review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding this edit: I think that of the two apparent duplicate refs, the wrong one was removed, because it explicitly backs up the first part of the statement, but not the second. Bradley's text reads "Of the two survivors, No. 31258 was laid aside in January 1961, but No. 31065 remained active and on 11 June 1961 piloted C class No. 31592 on the last Hawkhurst branch passenger train." - no mention of the LCGB, nor even of a special. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Reworded to take the above into account. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry of the delay in getting to this point. Up to Christmas I could do on average one GAN per day, but so far this year its down to an average of one per week. Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's OK, it looks like I've got two GANs running at the same time. At least with this one there are other editors around to pitch in, but with the other I'm on my own. Mjroots2 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not any more. Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
An outstanding article: well-referenced and well-illustrated. The WP:Lead is rather weak, but I'm going to discount this as the body of the article more than compensates for it.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA status. I think it could make FAC, if you choose to go down that path, but some work will be needed to bring the WP:Lead upto the necessary standard. I'm discount this at GAN and awarding GA-status - this article is more than worthy of it as it stands. Congratulations on getting the article up to the standard that it is. Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)