Talk:Romford/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

This article looks quite reasonable; and at or about GA-level, so I'll do a detailed review section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, whilst it is not a spacific GA-requirement, most if not all UKgeo articles have a section on weather - temperature and rainfall records - have a look at any of the GA UK-towns (and US towns). The broadness clause can be used in this case, but I'll continue reviewing the article for the moment. Pyrotec (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the average temperatures for now. This has actually highlighted a problem with London coverage in general and we should probably have this information on the borough articles as a bare minimum, currently only the London article has this information. MRSC (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

There is not much wrong with the article, so I'm just doing an overall summary rather than a section by section list of corrective aactions. Its basically GA-material.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Minor comments:

There are inconsistencies in the naming of references, e.g. there is (made up example) Bloggs, Fred (2009). My first book and Fred Bloggs (2009). My first book.

Powell, W.R. (Edr.) (1978), is a reliable source, but it is a (set of) published book; that in some instances is freely available as a set of pdf files. My personal oppinion is that the 'correct' call for this source is as per in-line citation 5, with page numbers quoted (one that I changed). Elsewhere, it is called up as a web reference (as W.R.Powell (1978).) with no page numbers.

Overall: Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wanted to archive this today as it is ten years old. I archived a load of other stuff because an archive link existed for each section. It doesn't exist for this 10 year old GA review. I've never tried to manually archive something myself. Anybody? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I dfon't know what is going on, as I edited on the Romford talk page, and this does not appear to be that page??? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]