Talk:Upton, Merseyside/GA1

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

Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Criteria
A good article is&mdash;  :  ; and .  :  ; ; and <li>.</li> </ol> <li>:</li> <ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li>; and</li> <li>.</li> </ol> <li>.</li> <li>.</li> <li>:</li> <ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li>; and</li> <li>.</li> </ol> </ol>

Initial Review
Please address any issues raised here before a full and in-depth review of the article is undertaken. -- Adam Black talk •  contribs  •  uploads  •  logs 11:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1a:
 * 1b: There shouldn't be any references in the lead of the article. The lead should summarise content in the rest of the article - material in the lead should be referenced elsewhere.
 * 2a:
 * 2b: - Some of the sources do not appear to be reliable. Particularly, the references to timetables appear to be primary sources.
 * 2c:
 * 3a:
 * 3b: - Perhaps goes into unnecessary detail in the Buses section. Additionally, the Upton, Merseyside section may contain more information than necessary.
 * 4:
 * 5:
 * 6a:
 * 6b:
 * Adamblack93, thanks for the preliminary review. I'll get on with fulfilling the points which you've specified as time allows (probably within the next couple of weeks). Please advise as to whether or not the review needs to be put on hold while the points specified are brought up to standard.EP111 (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Point 1b has been fixed. EP111 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Point 2b has been fixed, primary source timetable references removed. Point 3b Buses section has had unnecessary detail removed. EP111 (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Point 3b has been fixed as much as possible. I've removed the minutiae of detail, whilst maintaining the main points. EP111 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

what is the status of this GA review?  TLSuda  (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the movement on this. I'm not sure what the status is, as this is the first time I've nominated something for GA. However, I've done everything I can in the request to bring the article up to GA standard on the questioned points listed above. EP111 (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to take over the review if necessary (I can take it next weekish) if Adamblack93 is done with it. I'd like to give them a chance to respond first. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , I see you don't edit much, and if you haven't responded in a further 2 days (7 days from initial ping), I will take this GAR over to finish. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * - sorry, I haven't had an internet connection recently. As it's now been 7 days, I've assumed you took over the GA review. I've tried to help, though, making some edits I felt were necessary. I apologise for not being able to give this my attention. -- Adam Black talk •  contribs  •  uploads  •  logs 23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I'd be happy if TLSuda could continue the review at the earliest opportunity, as it's been more than four months since I've nominated the article. EP111 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Re-review
I only have a few concerns. See below. Normally most of these issues are enough to quickfail the GA review. It still needs some major work. I'll give you another week if you want to try to clean it up. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the lead is extremely long and run-on. Split it up into two sentences.
 * There are no sources for the last two paragraphs of the Early modern section.
 * There is a "citation needed" tag in the article, which is basically a quick-fail for GA review.
 * Most of the "Services" section is unsourced.
 * Most of the "Schools" section is unsourced.
 * All of the images captions need to be more descriptive.
 * There is not a single source in the "Notable people" section.
 * You may consider the article as either an immediate fail, or on indefinite hold. I'm unlikely to get around to fixing those points within the week. Thanks for your review. Regards, EP111 (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Checking to see if you have any desire to address the review. If not, I will close this. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)}}
 * I'm busy with other pages at the moment, so you may close the review. I'll get back to fixing the points at a later date, when I'm ready to focus on it. Thanks, once again, for your time reviewing the article. EP111 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, at this time the article does not meet the standards of being a Good Article and this review has failed.  TLSuda  (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)