Talk:Acton Town tube station/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 20:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks as though some hard work has been put into preparing this article, so I will be happy to review it for GA.
 * My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response.  Rcsprinter123    (post)  @ 20:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article. :) So have you got any results yet? Vincent60030 (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I've been busy all yesterday. I hope to make a start today.  Rcsprinter123    (confess)  @ 10:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Overall comments
The article looks a little unbalanced in terms of content, with a large newly-expanded lead section and every other section only being a paragraph long. I think the info in the lead needs to slide down a little. For references, there seems to be an adequate number at first glance, backed up with some further reading, so the content is largely verifiable. There's only two inline images, so perhaps some other appropriate photographs or diagrams could be inserted. Checklinks reports no dead links and there are no ambiguous links, either. Daily traffic is around 39 views per day, so while not exactly the highest traffic, still worthy of being high quality for those that do read it.

Section analysis
After the review has been conducted, editors addressing the article may mark individual points below off by placing done after the item.

Lead

 * Infobox
 * Is there anywhere to get the 2014 entry and exit figures? This will help the article to be up to date. ❌
 * There is possibly too many points in the "key dates" section. Could some such as the openings of branches be trimmed off? ✅
 * Date of adding to listed buildings list is unreferenced ✅


 * Lead
 * Too much detail and 0 references after the first paragraph. ✅
 * " Mr. Clemmence" - This guy is referred to twice in the article and we don't know who he is (no brief explanation, not linked), and people are not usually referred to as "Mr". Also, British English does not include a full stop after the "Mr", although the whole thing needs fixing. ✅ removed it instead :p

Location

 * References needed on the first three sentences (can be references already used) ✅
 * References needed re: Frank Pick House ✅
 * This doesn't read correctly: "It is home to one of [...] engineering department." ✅

History

 * The caption for the photo, which is too long, could be placed somewhere in the text and made to refer to the photo ✅
 * South Acton branch
 * "Abutment" possibly linked as an uncommon term ✅ nvm, changed to support

Station building

 * "The initial brick-built station" - not very clear, perhaps try "original" or "first" ✅
 * Who is John Wolfe-Barry? Needs a link or brief explanation, as well as Clemmence above ✅
 * Is there a photo of the station building? Could you take one? Why not illustrate what you're describing? ✅
 * "projecting roundel sign" - needs some way of saying it is the LU roundel, that famous icon ✅
 * Can you find a little history of WHY in 1994 it became a listed building? Are there notes available from the time of its designation? ✅

Services

 * Picture of a train at the platform? ✅
 * "Piccadilly line" section is too precise where it includes times of day; these are subject to change ✅
 * "During disruption" to the end of the paragraph is almost verbatim to the source. This nomination will not pass until it is rewritten. ✅

Connections
Does this really need its own section for just one sentence? It could become a subsection of "Services" or something. You could even expand it and talk about where those bus routes go and the connecting road network. ✅

No other issues

Checklist

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'll just wait until you have removed Clemmence and then I can promote to GA.
 * Thank you so much to all of you! :) I have removed the "Mr Clemmence" statement. Vincent60030 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'll just wait until you have removed Clemmence and then I can promote to GA.
 * Thank you so much to all of you! :) I have removed the "Mr Clemmence" statement. Vincent60030 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much to all of you! :) I have removed the "Mr Clemmence" statement. Vincent60030 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)