Talk:Becontree tube station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 22:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Giving a look. —Ed!(talk) 22:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Dab links, external links tools show no problems. Copyio tool returns green. I do note some duplicate links though if those could be removed.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Source spotcheck Refs 6 and 15 both back up material cited in the article.
 * Refs 6 and 8 should be combined.
 * Refs 4, 9 and 12 are resolving Harv errors right now.
 * Fixed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Not Yet
 * Geography: Any chance for details on local population in a walking distance to this station or ridership along the line?
 * I think this info would be more suitable in the Becontree article, and the current info should be adequate for a description. Vincent LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * History: What was the construction company that built the initial station? How much did it cost?
 * Actually I was meant to say that the LMSR built the station, but about construction cost I can't find any detail. Vincent LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think it's worthwhile to add a bit about the growth of the neighborhoods around this station. From an urban development perspective, that is very relavent to the story of what brought service here and why it has continued. this source for instance would provide some great context.
 * ✅ I tried fleshing some details out eventhough it seems rather awkwardly placed. Vincent LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 06:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "The station was refurbished by Metronet in 2006." -- What was the cost here, or of the larger refurbishment program that this was part of?
 * Per WP:IPC I'm not thinking the current section on that is necessary, and moreover a single sentence doesn't really justify it. I'd suggest turning it into a note and including it somewhere in the history section.
 * ✅ I've addressed these two issues, by elaborating the refurbishment. Vincent LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Any chance for station succession data (neighboring stations) as is included in many NYC Metro station articles?
 * What exactly is this? Are you thinking of a routebox - the article already has one, at Becontree tube station. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes I suppose that's fine too. —Ed!(talk) 13:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass Four images cited to CC where appropriate.
 * 1) Other:
 * On Hold Pending a few changes. —Ed!(talk) 22:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Could you do the final checks? I've addressed all the issues thanks :)  Vincent LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for the work! Going to Pass the GAN based on the above responses and additions to the article. Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 20:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem! And thank you so much for the reviews uwu Vincent LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 01:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)