Talk:Plymouth railway station/GA1

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


 * Lead
 * I find the first line of the lead a bit strange. It seems an odd way to introduce the article. Also "North Cross" roundabout isn't even mentioned in the article.
 * "is the largest of the six surviving railway stations in the city, indeed the only one served by InterCity trains." Is indeed the word you mean?


 * History
 * "The station here" What does here refer to?
 * "In 1876 the South Devon Railway", introductory phrases such as "In 1876" need a comma after them.
 * What are "Plymouth North Road" and "Plymouth" in bold?
 * "Further closures of former LSWR stations and GWR branch lines has left just six stations in the city – at Devonport, Dockyard, Keyham and two in St Budeaux – Victoria Road and Ferry Road[7] – although local passengers also come from stations a little further afield such as Saltash, St Germans and Ivybridge." The number of dashes makes this sentence difficult to understand.
 * "The station now had seven through platforms, although two of were converted to terminal bay platforms in 1974." There's either something missing here, or it's badly worded.
 * This whole section is difficult to understand. As a history section, I'd suggest doing it chronologically.


 * Signalling
 * More apparent unnecessary use of bold.
 * "The disused 1938 North Road East Signal Box still stands on the north side of the line close to the bridge that carries Houndiscombe Road over the line." Unreferenced and why does it have it's own paragraph.


 * Description
 * "The station has its entrance on the south (or city) side." Why not simply "The station's entrance is ..." Also lose the brackets.
 * "Immediately inside the ticket barriers is a subway that leads to platforms 5 to 8, but platforms 1 to 4 are on the concourse level." Why "but"?
 * "Platform 3 is a west-facing bay platform, mainly by local services to Gunnislake and sometimes Penzance." Again either a word missing, or two unlinked sentences. It makes no sense.
 * The third paragraph is completely unreferenced.
 * "Park Sidings" should this really be capped?


 * Services
 * The first paragraph is largely unreferenced.


 * Passenger volumes
 * Does the table have a reference?


 * MOS
 * References should be placed immediately after punctuation.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

There's a lot to do, and unfortunately I'm going to fail it. It needs a good deal of referencing. But my main concern is over the quality of the prose. There's several sentences which read very poorly, and some which make no sense. I would suggest either a good copy edit, a peer review, or a request at WP:LOCE, or perhaps more than one of them. Peanut4 (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)