Talk:Kingston upon Hull/GA2

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


 * Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Initial thoughts
The article looks reasonable except for that short subsection, Hull Tramways. Its only two sentences on tramways, so its far too short, not even a proper paragraph. It then mentions trolley bus 1936-45 (full stop); but there is nothing about trolley buses. Neither tramways nor trolley buses are mentioned in Transport and infrastructure - which appears to be entirely concerned with present day matters. Either the Hull Tramways sub section / two sentences should go; or do the job properly, discuss trolley buses and what came after. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

main review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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:

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)