Talk:Bristol Parkway railway station/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. While you wait, why not spare a thought for the other nominees, and conduct a review or two yourself? This provides excellent insight into the reviewing process, is enjoyable and interesting. A list can be found here. Wikipedia needs more reviewers! Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the party. It's been a very lonely party. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	An excellent article

Commentary

This article is excellently written, well-sourced, and well-illustrated. I have no major issues, although do have several notes:

• No tags on images
• Well-sourced
• Clear and well-written
• Have had a look at the hidden GA1 review. Most, if not all articles undergo a period of intense editing before the article is nominated and/or another period between nomination and review. Stability in a GA review refers to edit wars, so I'm sorry that the article was failed in that regard.

I feel the article would be improved if these were addressed, however this article already exceeds the GA criteria, so I have marked it accordingly.

• Suggest "as of" here: "It is the third-most heavily used station in the West of England, after Bristol Temple Meads and Bath Spa" and here "The line is not electrified" (or combine the two)
• Here "The standard journey time to London Paddington is 90 minutes, to Cardiff Central 40 minutes, to Birmingham New Street 75 minutes, and to Bristol Temple Meads 12 minutes.[7][9]" and here "CrossCountry also operate trains "
• Suggest "British Rail was split into business-led sectors in the 1980s," sectors -> regions (sectors in business context connoting something intangible)
• Wikilink "Stone & Co"? (not sure if this is notable enough)
• "600 space " -> "600-space"

Overall I thank you again for your edits to Wikipedia and hope that you continue editing such high-quality articles! I've made all the relevant changes for promotion. Best wishes, --LT910001 (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's brilliant, thankyou very much for your review and the praise.

Regarding your comments:

• I will add the as-of in the "third most heavily" and "journey time" sections. I don't feel that "the line is not electrified" needs an as-of due to the presence of the rest of the sentence, but I shall add a date to that.
• I use sectors as they were specifically called sectors (intercity, regional, bulk haul, etc), and before that it was in regions (Parkway being in the Western Region).
• Stone & Co don't seem to have an article.
• Dash will be added.

Again, my thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mattbuck, if I could stretch and ask you one more thing, it would be for you two to select two articles from the good article nominees list and review them (that list is here: WP:GAN), we currently have a backlog of 340 items, and it means authors of articles like yourself have to wait an excruciatingly long time for a review, and every extra pair of eyes helps. --LT910001 (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I will look into learning about that tomorrow. I'm more a Commons person usually, but I'm sure one of the articles for review will have something which piques my curiosity. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)