Talk:London Underground departmental stock/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 19:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well-written: the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * I've made a few tweaks. Tests of copyright were fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You should check my edits to ensure I haven't introduced any errors but the prose is fine.
 * it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Lead and layout both complied with; others n/a.
 * Verifiable with no original research:
 * Referencing all fine.
 * Broad in its coverage
 * It passes this criterion at GA ("the main aspects of the topic") but I think it could go further. The article, at 2,100 words, has the room to explain more about the stock which gets a fairly cursory mention (what distinguished 62 stock, for example). It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
 * Fine
 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Fine
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images:images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Fine

I am therefore passing the article without further comment. If issues have arisen because of my changes, I'm sure they are easily resolved. Congratulations Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)