Talk:Manchester Metrolink/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 13:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
Sorry for the lack/absence of comments here. I've now read through the article once, quite rapidly, but I've not checked anything in the way of references, citations, copyright, etc, and on first impressions only I'd put the article somewhere between GA and FA, but I could be wrong.

I'm now going to work my way through the article, slowly, section by sections, starting at the History section and finishing with the WP:Lead. This will probably take the whole of the weekend, perhaps longer. Pyrotec (talk)


 * History -
 * Origins -
 * Quite a reasonably comprehensive and well referenced subsection. I have no great objections to what is stated here: Piccadilly and Victoria were built in the 1840 and where unconnected and located at opposing edges of its city centre (my paraphrasing) and that is true today (but their names changed over time, these are the modern ones), but there was Central in 1880 (gone as a station) and several schemes for linking-lines on viaducts, some of which were built. However, what is written is perhaps quite adequate and fit for purpose. Pyrotec (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Phase 1 -
 * I moved the link from T68 to T-68, since the former was clearly wrong.
 * Otherwise, this subsection appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.


 * Phase 2 -
 * Perhaps a minor point, but I have no idea where Eastlands is (well its in Manchester I presume on fairly strong grounds). All the other name places I could find more information via wikilinks.
 * Otherwise, this subsection appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Phase 3 -
 * This subsection appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Operator -
 * This section appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.


 * Infrastructure, Travelling & Patronage -
 * These three sections appear to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.


 * WP:Lead -
 * This is quite a long article and this lead at four-paragraphs in length makes a reasonable attempt to meet the requirements (of WP:Lead). There are one or two (perhaps four) small points that the lead does not cover, but it can't cover everything, so I'm going to mark this as "compliant". Pyrotec (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

*Eastlands
FYI Eastlands is the general area around the former Bradford Colliery and the sporting complex based on the City of Manchester Stadium. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very for that information. In that case I've not been there. Pyrotec (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria An informative and well-referenced article. I've certainly learnt much about the system as a result of this review.
 * 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. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA-status and I believe that it has the potential to progress through WP:FAC. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you sir! Much appreciated. Work continues to perfect the article using your feedback as a guide. Thanks again, --Jza84 | Talk  12:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)