Talk:Angle Lake station/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 02:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving this article a Review for possible GA status.Shearonink (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
References are all good. Shearonink (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
No OR - every statement is scrupulously-researched. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Copyvio tool found no issues. Shearonink (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Like Dragnet, just the facts. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No edit-warring, very stable. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
All the images have the proper permissions. Shearonink (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I am giving this article a few more proofing-readthroughs just in case I have missed any issues or areas of concern. Barring finding anything that is problematic, I should be able to finish this GA Review up within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is factual and straightforward, well-referenced, includes human interest - nicely-done. Future improvements would be to keep the article updated with any changes - possibly including what has happened to area-residents displaced by the development that has accompanied this light-trail construction (mentioned in one of the cited sources). If there are any images of the landscaping mentioned (with the harvested rainwater) I think that would add some human interest/ecological aspects to an article about transport. Shearonink (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.