Talk:Yatton railway station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 19:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: two found and tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "The station was originally built, as the name suggests, to serve passengers for Clevedon, who would travel on by road. " I don't see how the name Yatton suggests this. Perhaps add "as originally named". ✅
 * Fixed. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a number of stray single sentences, which should be consolidated into paragraphs.
 * Better? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can still see several stray sentences. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is not a single lone sentence left that I can see. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally prose is good and apart from the points above, compliant with key elements of the MoS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Two dead links found as noted above.
 * I have fixed the SCRP one, but have not done the other - I think this is a temporary problem with APCOA's website, as the link is still listed when you search for Yatton, but redirects to their homepage. A brief check of other car parks also revealed the same behaviour. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Otherwise references well formatted, appear to be RS, no evidence of OR, spotchecks support statements.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good coverage, but not sure if the Incidents section is necessary. These are minor incidents, not of any encyclopaedic nature. ✅
 * Not entirely happy about removing it, but I accept they're fairly minor. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Fair and unbiased.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable
 * 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):
 * Images from Commons, correctly tagged and licensed and captioned.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the fixes, I am happy to list this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)