Talk:Crystal Palace railway station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 17:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

At the moment the article doesn't meet the GA standards - in particular, as per below, it needs a fair bit of work on the references. Happy to review at a later stage when this is done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * "From the outset..." - when? The main body of the article hasn't described its construction etc. yet.
 * There are quite a few "bitty" paragraphs, with one or two sentences. It would be worth seeing if these could be combined into more flowing structures.
 * Inconsistency in "platform" capitalisation (sometimes "Platform x", sometimes "platform x")

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * "through the same treacherous material [clay], through the hill on which the Crystal Palace stands, and immediately under one of the great water towers, a superincumbent weight of 2,200 tons which taxed in its execution all the skill and workmanship of the eminent contractors." - this shouldn't be in italics according to the MOS.
 * Transport links and services - these sections need to be dated (e.g. "As of 2013...") as they are likely to change over time.
 * "London Buses route 157, 249, 358, 410, 432 and night route N3." - this sentence lacks a verb.
 * " built to serve the site of the 1851 exhibition building" - why the italics?
 * "The frontage of the station was rebuilt in 1875, and was described: " - described by who?

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
 * "Railways of the Southern Region (PSL Field Guide, Geoffrey Body, 1984))" - lacks a page number
 * "Crystal Palace Train station restored - This is Croydon 28 September 2012" - lacks a retrieval date.
 * "Please note: Some methodology may vary year on year." - this doesn't quite read as regular English - perhaps "the method for calculating the figures is not consistent"?
 * The third of these is not actually in the article. It's generated by, used within , and so is identical to the corresponding ref found in Herne Hill railway station, which passed FAC with that exact wording. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Large parts of the article are unsourced, including a range of statements that meet the threshold for in-line citations (e.g. "Following the fire in 1936 which destroyed the Crystal Palace passenger numbers fell ", "The original station was partially refurbished in 2002 by Railtrack at a cost of £4 million. ", " Electric trains from Victoria were advertised to complete the journey in fifteen minutes - a running time that has never been equalled.", etc.)

(c) it contains no original research.


 * As much of the article is unsourced, this is hard to ascertain.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * What was in the area when the railway station was first built? e.g. was it suburbs, a green field site, etc.?
 * What is the difference between the high and low level sites?
 * The article probably needs to mention the changing ownership of the station over time.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * Focused.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * Appears neutral.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Stable.

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.
 * File:Croydon, Norwood & Woodside RJD 53.jpg claims author + 70 years as its justification for PD, but gives no details of the author or their date of death.
 * This diagram was published by the Railway Clearing House (RCH) as one of a series of over 150 which were periodically revised, and this particular one was issued in 1908. The "author" is unknown, but will have been an RCH staff member, possibly a professional draughtsman or cartographer employed by the RCH. Copyright will have been assigned to the organisation, not to an individual. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes.