Talk:Channel Tunnel/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Channel Tunnel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

The article seems to wander, a lot. I'm pretty sure the issues would be helped by a total reordering in terms of time (i.e., Early history, planning, engineering, opening, services, recent events (specific), recent analyses (environmental, economic). As it is, parts of all of the above are sprinkled liberally throughout the article, which makes it hard to follow. Good luck! &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 06:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to fail this article...it has been on hold for twenty days with no improvement. Nikki  311  16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)