Talk:London Bridge station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 16:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This may take a couple days the get through.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   There's a section for accidents and incidents, but the lead doesn't mention/summarize the information.

   I don't think it needs to, none of Waterloo, Euston, St Pancras and Victoria (all GAs) do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

   Fair enough. I wasn't sure how to go about adding it anyway. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

   I think a general rule of thumb based on those, plus other examples like Moorgate and King's Cross St Pancras, is that an accident goes in the lead if it's notable enough for its own article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

   "a planned railway museum" - the source is from 2013. Is the museum still pending?

   According to this source, construction is planned to start in 2019 and opening in 2022, but I don't know how suitable London-SE1 is as a reliable source. It's self published, though I've no doubt what is on it is believed to be true, I don't think it's backed up by hard, irrefutable evidence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

   Thanks for checking. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

   "London Bridge station remained a sprawling confusion" - why is "sprawling confusion" in italics?

   Should have been quotes. Fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

   The section 'London Brighton and South Coast Railway station' refers to the Terminus Hotel, but 'Southern Railway station' calls it the Terminal Hotel.

   It's Terminus Hotel. One of many sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

   " It has been described as " - do we know who did the describing?

   Added the book name. Interestingly, we have articles on several "Oxford companion to..." books, but not this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

   The platform configuration changes its style three times. The first bullet uses and, the second uses &, and the last two use a dash. I think dashes all around would be nicer, but the use of and and & should at least be consistent.

   "was recommended to investigate" - do we know who did the recommending?

   Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

   I made some copyedits. If you haven't already, please review them for accuracy and clarity.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   no concern

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:

   no concern

   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:

   no concern

   C. It contains no original research:

   no concern

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig returns a high result for this source. Most of the flagged portions are false positives caused by unavoidable multiword names and phrases, but two paragraphs in particular are repeated closely. These need to be attributed inline or rephrased. (Note: an internet filter currently prevents me from examining the source directly)

   I would say it's more likely that that the source is a reverse copyvio of an old version of the article, and the only bits left are phrases not felt to have required a copyedit in the ensuing years. In any case, the highlighted bits of prose could all do with a bit of a trim anyway, so I've done that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I am not terribly familiar with the topic, but nothing obvious is missing.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   no concern

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   no concern

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   no concern

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:

   no concern

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   no concern

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Aside from a few minor points raised in 1A, this article is in good shape. Pass pending final responses. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

   Thanks for the quick responses. I'm satisfied that this meets the criteria. Nice work. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

   Thanks for the review. One of the problems (which is obvious if you visit the station) is that there's been a huge overhaul because of Crossrail, that hasn't totally finished (it's not quite looking like a building side compared to 12 months ago, but there's still stuff going on) so there's been a bit of a "moving target", hence obvious problems with the "Services" section which keeps getting random updates. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)