Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's get cracking. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go and note issues below (also check my edit summaries for possible explanations as I go): Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...now the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines (lead) - I'd link the lines here.
- The Underground serves 270 stations and 402 kilometres (250 mi) of track... - "serves the stations" ok, though not fond of the verb, but "serves the track"?? I think this needs rewording. Nothing is jumping out at me though.... Maybe the answer is to shift the number of stations to the next sentence which actually discusses station-count.
- In history section, first para, I presume ref 10 references the lot. What I often do here is add a commented out text after the ref noting the ref covers the whole para or previous 'x' sentences (In case of splitting or adding other material later)
- In The first underground railways, second para uncited.
- actually looking at that paragraph, the material concerning Pearson looks to be a little repetitive and somewhat convoluted. I think it could be folded down a bit. I am happy to have a go at this if you can't see it.
- In The first underground railways, third para has only one cite, and some interesting stuff there which'd be good to reference.
- In The first underground railways, fourth para uncited. I am not sure "the District" needs bolding (should be generally restricted to the lead)
- In The first underground railways, fifth para has only one cite.
- This caused widespread disruption and required the demolition of several properties on the surface - only several? that doesn't sound like much - do you mean several significant or historic ones?
- In The first underground railways, sixth, seventh and eighths paras need more cites.
- In the First tube lines bit, first para uncited.
- Integration section - paras 1,2, and 3 uncited.
- last four or five paras of the Integration section are a bit listy in terms of what happened. Any ability to add overall demand or other themes to make it tie together would be good.
- London Transport all uncited.
- The books from which pages are cited in the references section should not be in a further reading section as they are integral to the previous section. I generally call them Cited texts but that is my personal preference as it is the least ambiguous term I have found. I am not too fussed what you call them as long as it is made clear they are some form of reference. For any remaining, it'd be good to state a reason why they are needed in the article at all (I am open minded here)
More later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay here's the thing - the article pretty comprehensive (I can't see any glaring omissions) and the structure and prose are pretty good. One thing I find is that on these articles you find information is wrong surprisingly frequently when you start checking even obvious things - hence I really think it is necessary to have it ship-shape with inlined references. This is one of the problems with nominating an article you haven't worked on. I think I'll ping several contributors who've supplied material over the years and see if we get any luck. If no-one replies I might have to fail it (this is no big deal, it can be renominated any time...and will get picked up quickly to be reviewed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments having been pinged:
- --DavidCane (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I picked this up as the reviewer. As this would be an important article to do well and get right, I am happy to loosen the time criteria and leave open for a while. If it sounds like there is just too much to do, then I can just fail it now and see if folks move to address these issues at their own pace, and re-nominate at their leisure. I am happy to do either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- Manual of Style compliance:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
- References to sources:
- Citations to reliable sources, where required:
- No original research:
3. Broad in coverage?:
- Major aspects:
- Focused:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
- Fair representation without bias:
5. Reasonably stable?
- No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
- Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
- Pass or Fail: Look, I think alot of good work's been done on this article, but I am acknowledging David Cane's comments above.
Essentially:
- . Large swathes need referencing.
- . Historical figures noted above should be discussed
Anyway, at least this GA review has provided a game plan toward GA status, which someone can work on without a strict time limit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]