Talk:Tunnel Railway/GA1

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


 * Starting GAreview.Pyrotec (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:GAN On Hold - article is not stable.Pyrotec (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How is "article not stable"? It's had precisely five edits in the past month, all of them by myself and all of them minor rewordings; come to that, there are only seven edits in the entire history not made on the day of its creation, and there's not been a single non-minor edit in the entire history other than the initial single-edit creation. It's possibly the most stable article on the entire project. –  iride scent   19:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Iridescent. It was submitted to WP:GAN on 13 March 2009 and I read it in full on Friday evening (27th March 2009). I noticed from my watch list earlier this evening, when I was intending to do the review, that you had undertaken five edits this afternoon. As you say these are the first changes since 1 March 2009. I have no objections at all to you editing the article; but I don't see why I should review an article that is in the middle of being changed. It was flagged up as being under review when you started copyediting it. The criteria are here: WP:Good article criteria, but I'm happy to accept that (lack of) stability is not due to content dispute and/or edit wars. Let me know when you have finished editing it and I will restart the GAN review.Pyrotec (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Cut and pasted from a longer reply here)  The only changes were ultra-cosmetic – splitting the "previous stations" into subheadings to stop it being so dominant, and rewording one sentence to avoid the problem-word "economical"; aside from that there was no substantive change at all. Sorry if I came across as snappy, but you can rest assured that the article is stable – as I said, aside from the initial creation, there's not a single change in the entire history that isn't cosmetic. –  iride scent  23:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

This article has been rated as GA.Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)