Talk:Angel tube station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 11:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest.  Tim riley  talk    11:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments
There's nothing too serious here, and I'm putting the review on hold to give you a week to address the above points. I think they are clear, but ping me if you would like to discuss. –  Tim riley  talk    12:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * As it stands, the article does not comply with WP:LEAD. It needs to be expanded to summarise all the important points in the main text, which in this case I should say are, in addition to the brief info in the existing lead:
 * who built the station and when
 * it was the terminus until connected to Euston
 * why and when it was rebuilt
 * longest escalators on the Underground
 * Crossrail 2 proposal
 * Image – The caption uses the American "on Islington High Street", whereas the main text uses the English "in Islington High Street".
 * Location
 * Poor old Sadler's Wells! Doesn't it deserve a mention? It's nearer the station than the King's Head or the Almeida is.
 * History
 * "an arrangement still seen at Clapham North…" – WP:DATED: you need to say "As at 2105 or something similar.
 * "with access from street level was via" – superfluous word: either "with" or "was"
 * "reclad with a tiling" – the indefinite article looks rather odd here, but if it's the proper term, then fine.
 * Services and connections
 * The whole of this section (full and comprehensive as it is) is WP:DATED, and needs a note at some point that these services were in effect in 2015.
 * Notes
 * Note 1 – both sentences in this note need citations.
 * References
 * Ref 12 is a bare URL that needs fleshing out.


 * Ok, I will fix this as soon as possible but ref 12 is in German so I don't know how to flesh it out. :/ Vincent60030 (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have completed all the improvements needed, so what's next? Vincent60030 (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a second close reading tomorrow and take it from there. It's looking good.  Tim riley  talk    19:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay then. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion
I think the changes made in the past day or so bring the article up to GA standard. There are a couple of minor points that could do with addressing, but they are not serious enough to prevent promotion. (The header "The station today" isn't ideal, as the Manual of Style bids us avoid definite articles in headers, but I admit that no alternative wording comes to mind. And reference 8 lacks a page number.)

That said, the article now seems to me to meet the GA criteria on prose, accuracy, breadth, focus, balance, stability, referencing and images, so:
 * Ref 8 lacks a page number because it has no pages. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't say fairer than that!  Tim riley  talk    17:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Review summary

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

If this is your first GA – well done! (And well done even if it isn't your first.) –  Tim riley  talk    12:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is! Thanks for your encouragement! Check out my credits to you on my userpage. Eventhough it's short (really SHORT) but hope you like it! :) Vincent60030 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)