Talk:Manchester and Bolton Railway/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GAR.Pyrotec (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Initial review

Looks quite a reasonable article. Will do an in-depth review, starting later today.Pyrotec (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've now looked at this article is some depth. Its very close to being a GA and there are only two, relatively minor, improvements that I consider need to be put in place to gain GA-class:

1. There is some ambiguity as to what reference 6 refers to. The reference could be referring to a specific article in volume 17 of Backtrack, in which case the article should be correctly cited (e.g. Blakemore, Michael (2001). "Lancashire life— Part 1" In: Backtrack, Volume 17 (No. 5) pp. 252-9); the reference could be referring to the Backtrack Annual Index and extended summary on the given web page; or it could be referring to a specific (given) page on the "Steam Index: locomotive history" web page. This aught to be made clear in the layout of the in-line citation / bibliography.

The reference is for the paragraph that the link takes the reader to - I was uncertain on Wikipedia rules here but am happy to change the reference to suit what is written in the link. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.  Done.Pyrotec (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The Route section has a nice map that shows the relationship of the canal, the railway and a number of features on the landscape. However the section is about the route and in particular stations; but stations do not appear on the map. The map could be amended to show stations; an extract of the route diagram in Manchester to Preston Line could be copied and pasted into the section; there may be other ways of achieving a result. I don't express any preference, other than a requirement for a map or schematic showing stations.

I'll do this tonight, its a good idea. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

GAR

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   V. good

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)