Talk:Concrete bus shelters in Canberra/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ballpointbiro (talk · contribs) 14:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to review this article today. Best, Ballpointbiro (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The review is complete, I've picked up a few minor things that could be improved. Overall the article is really good, and does not need a lot of work to make GA status. Things to be improved for GA status are in bold italics. Suggestions for future improvements are in italics. Ballpointbiro (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this review, I was away for a few days. You've addressed all the issues I picked up, so I'm happy to give this article GA status. Congratulations! Ballpointbiro (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

0 - Copyvio

 * I used Earwig's Copyvio Detector to check the page, which returned a 50% match to a blog. The blog post in question was published on March 13 2021 while the main edits to the article took place in January 2021, which suggests that the blog is using text copied from the article without attribution. The next highest hit was 20% against an article on the ACT government website. This is mainly down to long place and organisation names, as well as a quote which is attributed and cited properly in the body of the article. All images used in this article are self-made work on Wikipedia Commons. I have no concerns over copyright violation in this article.
 * Out of interest, what was the blog? I've seen bits of the article turn up in news stories and on Reddit, but have missed that blog. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The blog seems like malware central so I don't want to link to it, but if you use Earwig's Copyvio Detector on this article it is the first hit. Ballpointbiro (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

1 - Writing

 * A - Prose, spelling, grammar
 * The prose flows really well, with a detached encyclopaedic tone. There are no spelling or grammatical mistakes, and the prose is informative without being dry or repetitive.


 * B - Lead section, layout, words to watch, fiction, lists
 * The lead section is a good summary of the article and covers all its key points.
 * The layout is logical and conforms to MOS:LAYOUT, but in my opinion the Installation section should be renamed History as only the first paragraph of the section deals with the shelters' installation.
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In the third paragraph of the lead section, it is stated that the shelters are "now very popular". I couldn't find any sources that explicitly say this, though they do imply it or state it in different words. I think that it might be more appropriate to use a quote from one of the sources at this point, particularly as it is in the lead section.
 * Changed to 'well regarded' which better reflects the cited sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no formatted lists or tables in the article and it does not concern a work of fiction.

2 - Verifiability

 * A - References
 * All the references are from reliable news outlets or government agencies.
 * The first two references (ABC News and ArchivesACT) are relied on heavily. It would be great to see some more sources to back up the details from these two, I appreciate this is quite a niche subject so this may not be possible.
 * I've searched extensively for sources (including the archives of the Canberra Times), but those two sources - especially the ArchivesACT article - are by far the most useful. As a niche topic, the bus shelters haven't attracted much genuinely in-depth coverage. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * B - Citations
 * The article uses inline citations appropriately, supporting assertions and quotes with sources.


 * C - Original research
 * This article does not seem to contain any original research, as all statements are supported with citations. There are no long sections of unsourced text.


 * D - Copyvio
 * See section 0

3 - Coverage

 * A - Coverage
 * The article covers the topic quite thoroughly, and provides some background for the construction of the shelters.
 * In the future it would be nice to see some more context around the design and construction of the shelters; some information concerning influences on their design could be interesting.
 * Unfortunately I haven't been able to find sources on those topics. There were a lot of brutalist buildings constructed in Canberra during the 1970s and early 1980s and presumably these fitted into the style. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * B - Focus
 * The article remains on topic throughout.

4 - Neutrality

 * The article is neutral in tone and provides opposing viewpoints where appropriate, particularly the Iconic status section.

5 - Stability

 * There are no stability issues; no edit wars or contentious areas.

6 - Illustration

 * A - Copyright
 * See section 0


 * B - Relevancy, captions
 * The images in the article are relevant and captioned appropriately.
 * It would be nice to see an example of the murals painted in and on the shelters, there are some possibilities on Wikimedia Commons.
 * I've added an image. Unfortunately, few of the murals have survived though. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that I've now addressed your comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)