Talk:Montpelier railway station/GA2

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

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 16:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks as though Mattbuck has put some hard work into preparing this article during May, so I will be happy to review it for GA. My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response.  Rcsprinter123    (shout)  @ 16:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent news! -mattbuck (Talk) 19:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall comments
This looks like it could very well pass. There are a number of sections, all well-wikilinked and illustrated and relevant to the subject, and following the structure which is standard for UK station articles. For references, there seems to be an adequate number at first glance, backed up with some further reading, so the content is largely verifiable. However, Checklinks reports rather a number of dead external links, which will all require fixing before the nomination can be approved.

Section analysis
After the review has been conducted, editors addressing the article may mark individual points below off by placing done after the item.


 * Infobox
 * Does it matter that unit 143621 was in this photo? Why can't it be just a Pacer?
 * Not especially, it's just the way I wrote the caption. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Description
 * Could provide a little more detail on where Ashley is within Bristol, like "central" or "eastern"
 * ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it known why a platform was abandoned in 1970? Could this be mentioned?
 * It's mentioned in the history section, that was when they reduced the line to single track. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "A rise of almost 100%" - this means that in 2002/03, pretty much nobody used the station? Would some more precise figures be available for insertion here?
 * "A rise of almost 100%" is worked on a baseline of 100%. Precise figures are indeed available, Current figures are in the infobox. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Services
 * I think it is too much to put the fare prices on to the article, especially as they are outdated and therefore not useful to anyone. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.
 * ✅ - That's not been an issue in any other GA, I thought it was actually an interesting snippet, but I shall remove it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Joint railway era
 * Citation number 8 is in twice at the end of the second paragraph
 * ✅ - How curious. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The caption of the image uses an improper sentence; a noun has to be doing the verb. "Looking east along the platform." may be better connected to the next sentence via a semicolon or somesuch, otherwise remove "looking"
 * It's perfectly acceptable to have such a sentence, and "East along the platform" would make no sense whatsoever. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Any clue why the committee "refused to build a new booking office" and how they "improve the waiting rooms"?
 * It's not mentioned in the reference. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * British Rail and Privatisation
 * No-one says aegis. I had to look it up to check the meaning. Could a more often-used, more understandable term be used instead, such as umbrella, charge, keeping, responsibility?
 * I say aegis (in about eight other GAs!) Still, ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No other issues

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * 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. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Looks like this passes all the criteria. Nomination passed!  Rcsprinter123    (discourse)  @ 16:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though I confess I got a bit worried when legobot said this had failed! Stupid bot... -mattbuck (Talk) 17:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's because I updated the article history template on the article's talkpage rather than add a GA template, must be a glitch in the bot. Congrats.  Rcsprinter123    (spout)  @ 20:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)