Talk:London Victoria station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 21:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. Declaration of interest: the nominator and I have met at a Wikpedian gathering, but as I am even nastier to my friends than to everyone else I don't believe I am disqualified from reviewing this nomination. More soonest.  Tim riley  talk    21:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The nominator would point out that he believes the reviewer can be easily placated with a suitable glass of wine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I take grave exception to the suggestion that I can be bribed with a glass of wine. It takes at least a bottle.  Tim riley  talk    14:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

First comments
I have very few comments on this excellent article. These few are merely suggestions, and do not affect the promotion to GA:


 * WP:OVERLINK: I assume there is a convention allowing repeated links in the list of station stops, but I don't see why it is right to flout the MoS rule in the main text. Gatwick Airport and Gatwick Espress are both linked twice in the lead, and if you run the "Highlight dupicate links" check you'll find dozens of excessive duplicate links, e.g. three "Battersea", three "Network Rail", four "London Bridge" and so on.
 * Never noticed the "Highlight duplicate links" before - how long has that been there? Anyway, should be all fixed now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Charles Langbridge Morgan (engineer)" – you could pipe this more elegantly
 * Mistake - fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "the 'Chatham' portion" – double quotes, please
 * I don't think quotes are necessary here at all, the station did have two sections that served different destinations. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "son of Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald" – clunky false title and excess of capitals: "son of the prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald", would fit the MoS better.
 * Copyedited a little, but Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is in caps, so I would assume that's what consensus judges as correct. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "immediately following the declaration of World War II, and other services were terminated following" – too many followings
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "A plane crashed into the eastern side of the station on 15 September 1940, while a flying bomb caused partial damage on 27 June 1944" – unwise use of "while" when you mean "and" – the contemporaneity implied by "while" looks silly when the two events are four years apart.
 * The main aim of the conjunction here was probably stop having lots of short sentences. Anyway, fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "The last steam services left Victoria on 8 January 1964 to East Grinstead, after which it was replaced" – we've moved from plural "services" to singular "it" here.
 * Typo, should be "service", unless multiple trains all ran simultaneously for the last steam run (which they didn't) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "The station was redeveloped internally..." – there are three "also"s within a few words of each other here, and they are a bit noticeable.
 * Copyedited <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "an luxury Pullman services" – plural indefinite article with plural noun
 * This looks like I trimmed down some prose previously here, and forgot to fix it up properly. All sorted now <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "by 'cut and cover' ... deep-level 'tube'" – more single quotes that should be double
 * I've copyedited this - and linked deep level underground. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Current upgrade section – I think you should add a date – as at 2017' or some such. See WP:DATED
 * I've rewritten this section. There's no reason not to use specific dates; the work has a scheduled start and end time. Also, the article is slightly out of date as the escalator improvements opened at the start of this year. (I haven't been to Victoria for a year or so because last time I took a train from there I ended up going around a rabbit warren of temporary corridors). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

That's the sum of my comments and suggestions. Please ponder and we can move forward to GA.  Tim riley  talk    22:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've addressed everything now, and good to see you around and back to regular editing and reviewing too. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Overall summary
This article looks to me more like an FA than a GA, but for present purposes, here we go: 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: