Talk:British Rail Class 455/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 15:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 15:46, 22 February 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:
 * The dates of the references are presented in at least two different formats - they should be in agreement. Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Adjusted to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * The following references have apparently gone bad:
 * Ref #24/raib.gov.uk is dead.
 * Ref #2/surreymirror.co.uk is dead. Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why the Checklinks tool is giving a false positive on Ref #2. All is well, moving on. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Everything is well-referenced. Shearonink (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Copyvio tool found no problems. Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * 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:
 * This is a straightforward, factual article that maintains a NPOV. Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 :). Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The photos all look fantastic! Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I cannot proceed with this Review until the referencing issues are corrected. Shearonink (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking on the review. I have introduced a consistent date format in the references and also fixed the dead link in ref #24; however ref #2 (surreymirror) seems to be live for me. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that Ref 2 is fine. I am passing this article to WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I cannot proceed with this Review until the referencing issues are corrected. Shearonink (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking on the review. I have introduced a consistent date format in the references and also fixed the dead link in ref #24; however ref #2 (surreymirror) seems to be live for me. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that Ref 2 is fine. I am passing this article to WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)