Talk:Bedminster railway station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 15:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I will review. I will make comments as I go. Please indicate what has been fixed below the relevant comments. I am not in favour or striking stuff out when it has been fixed, as it makes the review more difficult to read at a later date. Suggest using ✅, or somesuch, if need be. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Preliminaries
 * No dead links or redirected refs found.


 * Cardiff railway station is a disambiguation page. ✅ -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Images suitably licenced. However, I note that those of the murals may soon be deleted.
 * I was the one who nominated them, I'll poke someone to close it. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Images deleted and removed from article. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead is inadequate. It should introduce the subject and summarise the main points of the article. I normally review the lead once I have finished the article, but mention here that is is definitely too short.
 * I'm never entirely sure what to put in there. I've expanded it a bit, but welcome more input. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From Description, I would add four tracks, two island platforms, minimal facilities. From History, I would add total of 9 operators, 3 since privatisation. From future I would add campaign for electification, possibility of more trains if Portishead goes ahead.
 * It was better, but I felt it was still a little short, so have expanded it some more. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Description
 * 0 miles 78 chains does not look right. Suggest removing the 0 miles. ✅ -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "the line is signalled for bidirectional running" needs a reference. ✅ -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Access between the platforms is via a subway with ramp access (steeper than 1:12)" could do with a few extra words to make it read easier. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 13:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Services
 * "The basic service Monday-Friday". Suggest "from Monday to Friday" or "on weekdays". ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume ref 6 (Timetable 24), which is used for the Sunday service, also covers weekdays. so needs adding to this paragraph. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you have joined the paragraphs together, the ref does not need to be repeated.
 * D'oh! -mattbuck (Talk) 12:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "of a mix of" does not read well. Try "services are provided by a mix of..." or somesuch. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "however these have mostly been moved...". "However" follows a semi-colon. If you keep the comma, it needs to be "but". ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "pass through throughout the day" sounds wrong. Try rewording somehow. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This whole section needs some sort of intro to explain that this was the situation in 2011, 2012, or whenever it was written, so it is easier to see when it goes out of date. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * History
 * Another 0 miles. See above. ✅ -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "four-tracked, replaced by". Suggest "four-tracked, and were replaced by" to aid flow. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "the GWR became the Western Region". You have not introduced the abbreviation. Needs a (GWR) immediately after the full name two paras above. ✅ -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The signal box ceased use ...". Suggest "The signal box ceased to be used ...". ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Refs for last paragraph are a little tenuous, since they only cover the final part. There is no mention of Wales and West in the refs, and ref 12 refers to FirstGroup, which is not mentioned in the article.
 * Yeah, that is a bit of a problem. Wales and West was in the 90s, before significant online news, and it's quite hard to find references to it. The best online source I can find is, but none of the sources are exactly authoritative
 * I think the Historical Railways chart probably needs an additional entry on the end to cover First Great Westen / First Group.
 * I did consider that, but thought that the FGW period isn't historical, it's current, and so it wasn't necessary to duplicate information from the services seciton. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, we'll leave it as is.


 * Future
 * "put out for tendering" probably ought to be "put out to tender", and could be linked to Request for tender. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "the coming upgrade" could do with expanding just a little. "expected to be completed by 2017" or somesuch, again so the reader can understand if it is current. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "21st Century upgrading ..." is wikilinked twice in successive paragraphs. Link on first occurrence only. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "According to the Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy ...". The information following this is difficult to understand. Can it be explained it plainer English? Is capacity to do with how many trains run on the line, and whether more could be, and loading to do with how many passengers are on those trains? And if it is running at 130 per cent, what does this mean? That 30 per cent of the scheduled trains will not actually run? That passengers will have to sit on the roofs (a la India)? It needs to be explained in a way that Joe Public can understand, without needing to be a route utilisation engineer. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "If the Portishead Branch Line is reopened ...". With three refs, it must be possible to expand this a little, so that it is not a single sentence paragraph, and to give it a bit of context. In the absence of a route diagram, we need to know where it is, and when it might be opened, or if it is only a pipe dream. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidents
 * This is five paragraphs, mostly single sentences. Have a go at expanding the text a little, to join seemingly random events into some sort of cohesive whole. I would suggest two paragraphs as a maximum.
 * I've combined it a bit, but with rather disparate incidents it's quite difficult to weave a single narrative. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better.


 * Comprehensive?
 * It would be good to have a sentence or two on Bedminster, since that is the place that the station serves. Is it large/small, is the station near it/miles away, etc. I note that the Bedminster article mentions that the suburb is also served by Parson Street station, which would be worth mentioning.
 * Done my best, but you can't get actual information on the population of Bedminster since Bedminster is not solely contained within the council ward of Bedminster, which is mainly served by Parson Street. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better.


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * See comments above
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Since you are making good progress on fixing the points raised, I will not put the article on hold yet. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All issues raised have now been addressed. I am happy that it now meets the criteria for being listed as a Good Article. Well done. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)