GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The usual pedantry commences...

Pedantry? It's comments that will help make an article better - so no problem from my side. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, there's been some recent debate on WT:UKRAIL about this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - it's not like Chiswick or Leicester Square which get mispronounced - even tourists from Podunk, Iowa know what "water" is, and one word that rhymes with "loo". And anyone who's old enough will remember Abba. Anyway, I digress. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, actually, as the London station group includes some wild cards like Vauxhall which are not terminals by anyone's imagination Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them - they were all repeating stuff adequately cited in the body. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular instance, it's because the WEML goes to Exeter Central and Exeter St David's, neither of which seems to have prominence over the other, whereas Salisbury only has the one station. We could change it to Exeter St David's as that's the terminal station and also a main stop on the GWR from Bristol to Plymouth. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the sources say; however this source says Waterloo is both the busiest and has the most floorspace in the UK. There is no way that Belfast Central comes close. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the ones going to redirects are all non-notable (they redirect to a list), so I've reworded this as "Several London bus routes...." - we don't need to list every single bus that goes past the station. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I think I intended to expand on the single sentence but couldn't find anything suitable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that's "mean", I'd hate to get your opinions on some blocks I've seen ... anyway, clarified a bit Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither - reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what the source says. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can never remember the rules for dashes - anyway, fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this context, "and" would suffice Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - removed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)
I don't think I platform wrote that platform bit, I just got a platform source. Anyway, fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just fixed this in another article, I think. Anyway, it should be deep level underground (with link) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need "branch" here - siding (rail) is a branch by definition (also linked and copyedited) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (normally this happens when I can find a source citing part of a sentence but not all of it, tag the rest with ((fact)), and fix it later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Must have written this section backwards. Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like somebody (John?) fixed this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be Counties of England (I don't believe any normal service from Waterloo has gone to Wales, let alone Scotland) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the source says is "Bomb damage in 1914-18 was limited to the night of 29 September 1917, when explosions occurred on the down main line between A Box and Westminster Bridge Road" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean - this looks like a case where I added a source to prose. The arch probably got updated for WWII, but the source doesn't actually say that, so for now I think "the war" will suffice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done (I think?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I link to Hounslow Loop Line, readers hopefully will Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to public address system. (I was thinking of horn loudspeaker vs woofer)
Done for the historical values, but do we really need to inflate for 2010 and 2012? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyedited Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both. It was Railways from 1948-1965, and Rail thereafter to 1994 or thereabouts. Hopefully clarified in the article now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I was probably thinking of writing more about the CTRL, then didn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about Shippea Hill? Anyway, from the context of the source this means London terminal stations, so clarified Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's somebody who does the hands on menial work of fixing or replacing the railway lines. There isn't a Wikipedia article for it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Linked shaft (civil engineering) and copyedited. And surely you mean the Revd W Awdry : "The Fat Controller saw Gordon upside-down in the shaft, with steam spurting everywhere, and scolded him: 'You have caused disruption and delay, Gordon, and I will now have to get Edward to run the express to Southampton.' 'Bollocks', said Gordon." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently its a British Rail Class 404, which I would have thought was a "page not found" error Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.... and reverted by Redrose64 - explanation? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once you two have quit the battle, either way it's still WP:SEAOFBLUE. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced it to "electric", since I don't trust the links that were in the prose (I don't have the source given to hand so have to AGF what's in it, and it's not in the book sources I do have here, which only mention more significant accidents). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, deliberately reintroducing a redirect, that's amazing! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And your problem is? The train was a 4COR, what is wrong with linking that? WP:LINKCLARITY, WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:EGG all apply here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone with "with another 27" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I assumed people would be more familiar with "PSCO" but it makes sense to define acronyms before you use them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I think sources use both interchangeably as they are effectively the same, but I've gone with "UK" for consistency. (And you never know, Arlene Foster may get the £6bn promised to build High Speed 4 from Glasgow to Belfast International via Stranraer Parkway and the North Channel Tunnel....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone with "used by over 651,000 passengers" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I used to think William Hague's constituency was in SW London, but he wasn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a clue. Ask Sjoh123 who put it there :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was an attempt to make clear that the service had been mentioned before above under the 'mainline' section. i.e. it's a duplication. Feel free to clarify - couldn't think how better to do it myself. Sjoh123 (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should be Greenwich Pier, fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jackson's book does mention it, but I've added a TfL source and clarified Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I live with an American, vive la difference (also fixed) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, also removed "which will be a technically complex operation" as it sounds like POV Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an extra source from last month, but essentially that seems to be it from the news at the moment. Obviously it will need a significant update when the new platforms open in about a year's time Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (I probably meant to dab this to Euston, then forgot, though that would also be wrong, so best I didn't) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see why not Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although I see that's where the article is, I think non-UK readers, or at least those who don't remember Only Fools and Horses are 42-carat plonkers may be confused as to what "Del Boy" means in this context Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (think this was list going to prose) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done (I think it was just the "further reading", wasn't it?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from a quick Saturday night run-through. Placing on hold pending resolution of pedant's commentary. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with piping to a redirect? Or if you prefer, which of the GA criteria does this fall foul of? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean, gosh, what a comprehensive and thorough review, the like of which is seldom ever seen at GAN, you're really setting a new standard TRM?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Gosh, what a comprehensive and thorough review, the like of which is seldom ever seen at GAN, you're really setting a new standard TRM .... anyway, all points addressed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 I'll take a look tomorrow but I am a little concerned over the proto-edit warring to re-introduce complex terms, seaofblue and redirects, if such edits continue then we wouldn't be able to consider this as a stable article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I think I've raised concerns about this meeting the "stability" part of the GA criteria (although largely because the station has just changed train operator in the last few weeks), which is a shame because it's part of the User:Ritchie333/London termini project and I haven't had a GA actually fail in years. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, anyone else reverts changes suggested by the review here, go ahead and fail the review per WP:WIAGA #5 "Stability" and trout-slap those who helped to fail it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot fail a GA on the grounds that a link goes through a redirect. It is not one of the GA criteria, and as far as I know, never has been, and is not presently proposed to be. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can if people start edit-warring over it and the article becomes unstable owing to a content dispute - though would sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this may need to be paused for a moment, with this Redrose now delibrately including redirects and edit warring to keep terms like 4COR which are meaningless to the average reader. Maybe I'll return to this in a few days when it calms down a little and we can all regain some perspective on what we're trying to achieve here. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4COR was linked. Your problem with that being? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why insist on linking a redirect of an obscure term? How does that improve our readers' experience? Anyway, the article is now fully protected and unstable, so this review concludes temporarily. What a shame, we were on our way to a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So it's obscure. Wow, major crime. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia; and so there are many articles which use obscure terms. Isn't that why we link them? The article is about a railway station, and so is bound to include numerous railway terms, several of which will be obscure. Do we remove them all? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm done responding to such a hostile user. Maybe I'll come back and continue the good work Ritchie and I have put in into these articles at some point in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Waterloo is a well-known London landmark that is known by many people who wouldn't know a British Rail Class 321 from a British Rail Class 390 and aren't at all bothered by that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: ONE is a dusty bin. The other ain't. :) — fortunavelut luna 15:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To refute just one of the many incorrect and hostile claims, i.e. You cannot fail a GA on the grounds that a link goes through a redirect, who talked about failing anything at any point? Perhaps people interjecting here and at the GA criteria page just aren't commensurate with how these reviews work. At not one single point did the word "fail" pass my keyboard. Nor did any threat that failing to meet every single of my review comments would result in a "fail" either. I actually noted in my review that it was an initial pass over the article. There may be shedloads more to do, I just don't know yet, but we're not at the pass/fail gate yet folks, so cool your jets. The concoction of supposed "evidence" that I'm threatening to fail this for any reason is simply laughable. In any case, I have a busy long weekend ahead, kids and all that to entertain from dawn 'til dusk, but I'm hoping to get back to this review as soon as I can, but if my comments are met with more hysteria and hostility then I'll just jack it in and leave it to someone who's clearly more qualified than me to see it to its conclusion, there are plenty of people queueing up to pass this, and I'm sure that'd be just fine by Ritchie. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In article to features candidate, there is Problem"

Okay, now things have calmed down and we've been allowed to move on, I've made a few final tweaks and am now satisfied with the article quality, it's a very nice piece of work and wouldn't be too far from FA quality. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a long old slog - and yes, a positive result of all the other editors popping by and lobbing their 2c in means the article is going to have less problems and be closer to FA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fewer... ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes "problems" is a quantifiable entity and not some abstract concept :-P Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More