Talk:Leyland Landtrain/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 12:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello simongraham, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination which I'll present shortly. Hope my feedback will be helpful to you. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , the article is pretty much a good article although some fixes are needed, see the comments below. I have also left some suggestions along with it which you can adopt if you want to. On a general note, I personally think the prose overall could be better, it reads a bit informal at times. In any case, good work on the article, I'll promote it once the fixes are done. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 15:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * The lead shouldn't need to mention "in Leyland, Lancashire." Seems to imply that the truck was solely produced in Leyland. Was it even produced in Leyland? If there are other plants which produced the trucks or the CKDs, it should probably be mentioned in the production section. I would suggest splitting the lead into two paragraphs as well.
 * There is a stray "[" after Scrammel in the design and development section. Also, probably should state the entire name Scrammell Lorries. Too many also's in the first paragraph of the section which makes the sentences sound awkward. I would suggest rephrasing.
 * Many of the sources don't appear to be open access but I haven't seen any instance of original research in the ones that I could access so I'm going to assume that there are no issues with original research.
 * Thank you for your comments and thorough review. I have made the amendments that you have helpfully suggested. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't see any other issues in the article so I'm going to promote it now. Although one question, is "Lorriesx" a typo or was it the name of the company back then? Tayi Arajakate  Talk 03:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment
 Comprehension: The comprehension is good. 

Verifiability: The article is verifiable.

Comprehensiveness: The article is adequately comprehensive. 

Neutrality: The article is neutal.

Stability: The article is stable. Illustration: The article is adequately illustrated.

