Talk:Marshlink line/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 06:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

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

   Lays the facts out, and establishes the general timeline. Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

   No words to watch, WP:MOS seems to be all in line. Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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:

   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:

   The external link "Southern trains route information" is dead. Please correct/adjust. Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Since I put the article up to GA review, Govia Thameslink Southern has been all over the news about strikes, closures and general disruption (which I personally witnessed first-hand when I was stuck in Brighton last year with 3 kids and no train back to Ashford International) and I don't think the link is going to come back any time in the short-term future, so I've removed it for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Ah ok...too bad the information has completely disappeared. Shearonink (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Copyviotool gives this article an "all-clear". Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

4. Is it neutral?

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

   I'll say - this railway lines seems to have at least 9 lives and then some! IT's been scheduled for cancellation *so* many times. Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   As the article hints at, the line has the potential to be a fast link between the current Home Secretary's constituency and Westminster, so I'd say its future is looking brighter than ever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

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

   Stable! Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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:

   All of the images have the proper permissions. Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

   I am puzzled by the image of the File:Dismantled railway in Gravel Quarry near Lydd (geograph 2461856).jpg. I know that the included information says that it's of the

   "Remains of the 1937 realignment of the line from Lydd to New Romney, closed since 1967" but the reader/viewer can't see where the remains are in this photograph. I am not casting aspersions against the photo but to the casual reader this photograph just appears to show a field around a gravel quarry pond... I am not sure why this image is in the article. Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   In Geograph, we have the following alternatives : [1], [2], [3]. The third one might be the most suitable, as it shows a stile going over a fence for no obvious reason whatsoever. Any preferences? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Either 1 or 3 would be fine - 1 because it shows the lines in the earth left from the traintracks and 3 because it shows that now-nonsensical stile. 3 has some type of signage on the far side - is that a walking path directional arrow or a remnant of RR signage? Not being familiar with UK road etc signs I'm not sure but it did catch my eye when I was zooming in on the photo. Shearonink (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Okay, as Cilla once said, I'm going with 3. The sign on the other side is probably "public footpath". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Looks good - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Am doing some more deep read/proofreading readthroughs to see if I missed anything, but pending the image/s above's so far it's all looking pretty good. Shearonink (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Cool, thanks. When you're done here, I don't suppose you can do me a favour and pick up Liverpool Street station's GA review; the reviewer has disappeared and it's been "under review" for about 2 months now. I did ask on WT:GAN but there were no takers :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Ritchie333: I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup#Talk:Liverpool Street station/GA1 if I can step in and finish or if I need to start another Review...not sure what the procedure is in these types of cases. Will let you know when any of the more-experienced knowers of GA Review arcania get back to me. Shearonink (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   When a GA review is started but not finished, people sometimes leave a note at WT:GAN, see for example Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Incomplete review. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   User:Redrose64 - As the nominator said above, they already did that. So, does the apparently-abandoned Review get closed as a Fail? And the nominator then nominates it again?...What is the procedure in these types of cases? I'll take it on, I don't care about the date of the nomination on Talk:Liverpool Street station/GA2 but it will have to be done correctly as I am participating in the most recent GA Cup. Calling User:BlueMoonset, User:3family6, User:Figureskatingfan,User:Jaguar, and User:MrWooHoo. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Shearonink, you'd have to get a ruling from the GA Cup judges; so far as I know they don't typically give credit if someone takes over an existing review. That said, since Esquivalience has abandoned the review, if no one takes over the review directly, I'd typically put the nomination back into the reviewing pool, something I'd be happy to do here, since Ritchie333 has been waiting quite a while. Once it's back in the pool, you're free to pick it up as a new review. (The old review is not failed, and the nomination can retain its seniority.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   @BlueMoonset: So I can go ahead and just take over the Review? Just start working on what's there and finish up? Huh, I didn't know I could do that... I'll check with the GA Cup Judges and see what they have to say re: scoring. I actually don't care about the GA Cup points, I just would like to get the GA Review finished up for the article and for the nominator. From a quick glance it seems to me that the article doesn't have any major issues and the previous Review went through most of the GA Criteria, it doesn't seem fair to me to make the nominator & the article wait all the way through a whole new GA Review so, that being said, I'll just take it over.

   And since this whole discussion has veered somewhat off the rails for the the page it's on, how about we put any further discussion elsewhere - my user talk is fine or there is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup#Talk:Liverpool Street station/GA1 and maybe link to this discussion back here if wanted. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)