Talk:Parson Street railway station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 08:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I will make comments as I go. Please respond when items have been fixed against the individual comments, so that it is obvious what has been done and what still needs to be done.


 * Preliminaries
 * No dead links or redirected refs found.
 * No disambiguation links found.
 * All images are suitably licenced, and have appropriate captions.


 * Description
 * "It the second station along the line" should be "It is ..." ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The station is surrounded on all sides by the A38 road, access between the platforms is via steps..." This needs a conjunction after the comma, or use of a semi-colon. However, it might be worth mentioning that the A38 is one-way at this point, and two sentences used. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We already know the alignment of the platforms. It is probably worth mentioning that the branch heads northwards, to help the reader understand the layout of the station. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Services
 * "the basic service Monday-Friday". Suggest from Monday to Friday. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Pacer units were a regular sight, however ..." However follows a semi-colon. Suggest "but" if you keep the comma. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * History
 * "as four track" sounds awkward. Suggest "with four tracks". ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "making trains" sounds awkward. Suggest "requiring trains to" or somesuch. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Final two paragraphs need a few extra words. Are the 4000 passengers per year or for the two-year period? ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "with 14,293 passengers" probably needs to be "with 14,293 passengers using the station", as it follows a mention of trains, so we need to know they got off here, rather than passed through. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By my estimation, numbers quadrupling would indicate 57,172 passengers, so they more than quadrupled, unless the basis of calculation was different, in which case we need to know why the maths doesn't work.
 * ✅ - You're right, and me doing a maths PhD :/ Luckily it doesn't require me to count much. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "held a celebration of the passenger increase" reads akwardly. Suggest "held a celebration to mark the increase in passenger numbers" or somesuch. ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The depot had closed in 1990 due to lack of demand." Was this lack of demand for its facilities or lack of demand for wine? ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 02:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Future
 * "in the hour 08:00-09:00" reads awkwardly. Suggest "in the morning peak between 8am and 9am" or somesuch. ✅, although I should comment the section is word-for-word the same as you thought was ok at Bedminster. Ditto below but without the done. - mattbuck (Talk) 09:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that some of the text was the same, but even GA articles can be improved! Bob1960evens (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Bristol Metro scheme" is introduced but has no context. Is it a light rail scheme or a transport plan for the city? ✅ -mattbuck (Talk) 12:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 36 uses first sentence in title field, rather than title of article. (ditto Bedminster!)
 * Fixed the reference, but what do you mean by "ditto Bedminster!"? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The ref is identical on the Bedminster article, and I missed it on that review.


 * Incidents
 * I think this could be turned into a single paragraph to aid the flow. The hook between the first and second paragraph is delays to service. This would move mention of theft towards the end of that section, which is the hook between the second and third paragraph. Have a go and see what you think.
 * I have reworked it myself, as it was the only item left to do. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The formal bit
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Checking refs next. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nearly there, I think. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * All issues have now been addressed. Congratulations. I am awarding it GA status. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)