Talk:Wimbledon and Sutton Railway/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * When having both imperial and metric values in the parenthesis, use the  syntax to create a slash instead of a second parenthesis. (fixed)
 * The second external link (sutton.gov.uk) is dead.
 * 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):
 * I am wondering about the maps: They are free, but how can they have a CC license when they are in the public domain?
 * The 1920s maps have a CC license because that is what is given on the source site at Old OS Maps (at the bottom of the page). If this is inappropriate, then I will change them to a PD license as used on the 1944 map. --DavidCane (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A more accurate ref and a fixed external link, and this is a good article. Arsenikk (talk)  14:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the dead link to the London Borough of Sutton page as it was originally added to show some photos of the construction. The internet archive version does not include the images, so there is no point linking to it. I assume the ref mentioned above was the UK census ones. I have given a more detailed reference for these. --DavidCane (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All is now up to standards. Congratulations with a good article! Arsenikk (talk)  09:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The 1920s maps have a CC license because that is what is given on the source site at Old OS Maps (at the bottom of the page). If this is inappropriate, then I will change them to a PD license as used on the 1944 map. --DavidCane (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A more accurate ref and a fixed external link, and this is a good article. Arsenikk (talk)  14:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the dead link to the London Borough of Sutton page as it was originally added to show some photos of the construction. The internet archive version does not include the images, so there is no point linking to it. I assume the ref mentioned above was the UK census ones. I have given a more detailed reference for these. --DavidCane (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All is now up to standards. Congratulations with a good article! Arsenikk (talk)  09:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)