Talk:Piccadilly line/GA1

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

Reviewer: SurenGrig07 (talk · contribs) 00:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Following an immediate assessment of the internal contents of the article and a generalised summarisation of the individual components of the references section, in addition to a mandate for the correction of various particularly minor errors, I primarily believe that this article qualifies for selection as a good article; this primarily remains due to the fact that the article satisfies the generalised criteria primarily established for good article selection. With regards to the first criterion, the article primarily possesses large quantities of particularly satisfactory prose; an apparent absence of grammatical errors primarily remains present within the article, with the prose primarily remaining organised within a satisfactory manner and primarily complying with the established guidelines of the Manual of Style concerning layout and various additional issues of formatting. Concerning the second criterion, the article primarily possesses, upon cursory inspection, an abundance of particularly verifiable sources remain cited; the article does not possess notable research tags, a particularly positive factor within deliberations, while all citations within the article remain from reputable sources primarily responsible for the provision of information which may remain interpreted, dependent upon their academic reputation, as accurate. The article remains particularly broad within its coverage, with the internal sections of the article primarily providing extensive quantities of information concerning the entirety of the details associated with the Piccadilly Line and incidents which occurred related to the line; it additionally provides an elucidatory and historically informative summary of the continuous history of the development of the line. However, a recommendation may remain produced; within my opinion, the utilisation of punctuation within the "Notable incidents and events, Aldwych branch closure" title primary indicates that the nature of the section may necessitate the removal of the "Aldwych branch closure" section and the establishment of a subordinate heading beneath the "Notable incidents" section for the subject. Returning to the criteria, the article primarily remains particularly neutral; as with numerous articles concerning various aspects of transportation systems within nations which possess no active and propinquitous borders, this may primarily remain due to circumstance, though the efforts of the editors responsible for the article within maintaining neutrality must remain acknowledged. The article does not possess active edit wars; the entirety of the apparent edits produced within the recent history of the article remain constructive and responsible for generalised improvement. Lastly, the illustrations and images within the article remain particularly exceptional, primarily assisting within the presentation of the subject of the article and displaying numerous associated locations; in particular, the map within the incipient section of the article, which, within my opinion, does not necessitate the addition of a legend, assists within the informative nature of the article. Thus, I would primarily like to announce that the article qualifies for immediate selection as a Good Article and may continue to the following echelon of articles following improvement; thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurenGrig07 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)