Talk:Angle Lake station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 02:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am giving this article a Review for possible GA status.Shearonink (talk) 02:44, 6 March 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:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * References are all good. Shearonink (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * No OR - every statement is scrupulously-researched. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Copyvio tool found no issues. Shearonink (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Like Dragnet, just the facts. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No edit-warring, very stable. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 the images have the proper permissions. Shearonink (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I am giving this article a few more proofing-readthroughs just in case I have missed any issues or areas of concern.  Barring finding anything that is problematic, I should be able to finish this GA Review up within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is factual and straightforward, well-referenced, includes human interest - nicely-done. Future improvements would be to keep the article updated with any changes - possibly including what has happened to area-residents displaced by the development that has accompanied this light-trail construction (mentioned in one of the cited sources).  If there are any images of the landscaping mentioned (with the harvested rainwater) I think that would add some human interest/ecological aspects to an article about transport. Shearonink (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I am giving this article a few more proofing-readthroughs just in case I have missed any issues or areas of concern.  Barring finding anything that is problematic, I should be able to finish this GA Review up within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is factual and straightforward, well-referenced, includes human interest - nicely-done. Future improvements would be to keep the article updated with any changes - possibly including what has happened to area-residents displaced by the development that has accompanied this light-trail construction (mentioned in one of the cited sources).  If there are any images of the landscaping mentioned (with the harvested rainwater) I think that would add some human interest/ecological aspects to an article about transport. Shearonink (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is factual and straightforward, well-referenced, includes human interest - nicely-done. Future improvements would be to keep the article updated with any changes - possibly including what has happened to area-residents displaced by the development that has accompanied this light-trail construction (mentioned in one of the cited sources).  If there are any images of the landscaping mentioned (with the harvested rainwater) I think that would add some human interest/ecological aspects to an article about transport. Shearonink (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)