Talk:Gants Hill tube station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 21:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest.  Tim riley  talk   21:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Initial comments
Over to you.  Tim riley  talk   22:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Unlink London – see WP:OVERLINK ✅
 * I question whether "pedestrian subway" is a term that readers will require to be linked.
 * ✅ ah seems like I overlooked hehe VKZY LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "distinct architecture" – I think you probably mean "distinctive architecture" ✅
 * Location
 * "The station has taken its name from the Gants Hill roundabout itself" – a strange construction. I assume it means that the station takes its name from the Gants Hill roundabout – no "itself" wanted.
 * ✅ I actually meant that the roundabout itself is named Gants Hill too...but find it odd too so removed. VKZY LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "In fact, the ticket hall is …" – "in fact" serves no purpose here that I can see. ✅
 * I have no idea why the last sentence of the section is there: it is not in English and is not of much interest.
 * Do you mean the English is broken? VKZY LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentence reads. "The Savoy Cinema, then renamed to the Odeon, was once located near the station, but demolished in 2003." I think it is supposed to mean "The Savoy Cinema, later renamed the Odeon, was located near the station, but was demolished in 2003," but even if thus rewritten I can't imagine what possible interest this fact will be to anyone reading about the tube station.  Tim riley  talk   17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alright, removed. VKZY LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 03:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The History section seems to me admirable.
 * ✅ tried "neutralising" it. VKZY LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Design section, give or take a pointless link to "architect" and clunky false title for "architect Charles Holden", who would be a lot better for a definite article, is fine in the first two paragraphs. The last paragraph would be better if written in English, which the second sentence is not.
 * ✅ VKZY LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is still not in English. I think it is intended to mean something like: "Gants Hill is the only Underground station with a concourse designed by Holden that has no surface buildings. Unlike Redbridge it is not Grade II listed, although its distinctive architectural qualities have gained public support for listing."
 * ✅ decided to adopt that since I don't have a better phrasing. :/ VKZY LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 03:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Summary
I think this is fine now. It contains all the relevant information, as far as I can see. It is well and widely sourced (though why two books are listed under "References" rather than with the others under "Sources" isn't obvious) and the grammar has been sorted out. Meets the GA criteria, in my view. So:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Well done!  Tim riley  talk   11:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the comprehensive review! Road to more articles...meanwhile moving to DYK =D VKZY LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 17:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)