Talk:Battersea Power Station/GA1

GA Review

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

• Looks good. Not sure that "somewhere in Kent" is any different than "in Kent". Reference format can be improved - will pass after that is fixed. Apteva (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Specifically, most of the work = items can be deleted. While there are several that are "part of a larger work, such as a book, periodical or website", clearly Amazon.com, Geocities.com, Flickr.com, BBC.co.uk, etc. are not suitable. On the other hand, there are several links from portions of http://www.batterseapowerstation.org.uk/ and that is suitable, but if they could be formatted as work = [http://www.batterseapowerstation.org.uk/ Battersea Power Station Website] that would be better. Also, the coordinates are way too precise - a building that massive does not need to be geolocated to within a resolution of 11 mm (half an inch). These are very minor changes. Overall the article is very well written. Apteva (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted all of the work = items other than the community group website refs, as suggested. Not sure what I'm supposed to do with the coordinates. Maybe you could sort this out? It sounds fairly simple, I'm just not certain on what needs to be changed. Fintan264 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, just look for how the coordinates are getting there, usually from a {{coord}} template at the very end of the article, in this case from the info box, and round off to the appropriate precision, in this case 4 digits ~11 m. The form ddmm would have been acceptable as well, if the coord template had been used (dd|N|mm|E). Apteva (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• ✓ Pass. Well written, complete, well referenced, informative about the subject. Apteva (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)