Talk:Axholme Joint Railway/GA1

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

Reviewer: Robert EA Harvey (talk · contribs) 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Declaration of Interest
I have half a memory of adding a single refernce to this article, as part of my OCD-driven desire to create a 1:1 mapping between pastscape articles and wikipedia articles. I can't now find that in the history, so it may be an OCD-dream, but in any case it does not constitute a substantial contribution. I did not create or nominate the article, so I am happy to review it.

First impressions
This is a well-constructed article which, of necessity, makes heavy use of very few sources. The ones it does use are authoratative and from well-known publishers of well-researched books.

Criteria
Taking the criteria from How to review a Good article nomination:
 * The article should be clearly written, in good prose, with correct spelling and grammar.
 * No problems here. Lucid, good grammar, and an enjoyable read.  Sensible headlines
 * The article should be factually accurate according to reliable sources, with inline citations
 * yes, I have checked the outline against other sources, and borrowed the book by Judge mentioned from the public library.  It is all fine.
 * The authors may want to note that the Oakwood Press produced an earlier book of the same title, in 1961, written by Geoffrey Oates.  I used to have a copy of that!  Oakwood list that as 'replaced by OL92', the current book
 * Other sources used, which do not appear to be descended from this page:
 * LNER encyclopedia
 * Local web site
 * Lots of good in-line citations, though the end of the lead contains facts about closure which are only properly referenced lower down. But they are referenced, and it would be trivial to add one more citation.  It is not worth failing for just that.
 * The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions.
 * Absolutely. Well balanced.  Like a good novel with a beginning, middle, and end!
 * The article should be written from the neutral point of view:
 * No doubt of that.
 * The article should be stable, with no ongoing edit wars: constructive article improvement and routine editing does not apply here.
 * No problems here
 * The article should comply with image use policy. Images are encouraged but not required. Any images used should be appropriate to the article, have captions and free licenses or valid fair use rationales.
 * No problems here. Actually more images than I expected for a railway closed so long ago.  All are properly licenced.  Very well done.
 * I did find images at a private web site some of which may be available if approached. But while adding more pictures would improve the article, there are already some good ones.
 * The article is free of obvious copyright violations.
 * No problems here.
 * No problems here.

Looking at the similar list at Good_article_criteria I would make the same comments. The prohibition on OR is clearer in this list, but I do not think there is any in the article.

Conclusion
Passed --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've edited the template on the talk page, as directed, and manually edited the Lincolnshire and Yorkshire project pages to include this as a GA. But I can't see how to make it end up in WikiProject_Trains.  No doubt either someone, or something, clever will be along to do that later.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a manual task, so I've . -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I am trying to find what in the lead is not properly referenced in the body of the article. Any further clues? Bob1960evens (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing. I was saying that the bit in the Lead that says

However, most of the tracks were retained an... the rails were finally removed in 1972.
 * is missing in-line citations there, but there is a citation to the similar remarks lower down. The style guide on lead sections implies that the citation should appear in the Lead too, but I did not think it worth a fail just to have you add it and then re-appraise.  The article would not be factually different.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)