Jump to content

Talk:Bessarion station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBessarion station was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 31, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

Edits - 30 June 2009

[edit]

This article has been edited to conform with a standard scheme for subsections proposed here: Talk:Toronto_subway_and_RT#Individual_Station_articles_-_a_standard_scheme_for_subsections

Photos of the Concord construction site were removed as this page contains quite a few photos, and those are more suitable for the development's wiki page. A.Roz (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bessarion (TTC)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I'm sorry, but I have to fail the article outright. The article has potential, but it entirely lacks coverage of certain topics and still needs quite a bit work to be a GA. I suggest you look at the other rail station GAs included here; they should give you an idea of how a good railway station article should look.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    "When the site was excavated the soil was found to be contaminated with various levels of hydrocarbons. This was removed and decontaminated during the construction of the subway station." I assume "this" refers to the soil, but it would be unclear if "hydrocarbons" wasn't plural, and it's awkward wording at any rate. "Due to budget overruns during which had come up on several occasions..." The word "during" needs to be removed. "...there were many suggestions to remove it from the original plan." What suggestions, and by whom? The last two sentences of the lead don't appear anywhere else in the article. They should also be in a section on station services and facilities, which the article doesn't have yet; see my comments on criterion 3. The section on bus connections would be better off as prose, as there are not may connections and they can be described in a few sentences.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There are still several statements in the article which need references. The last two sentences in the lead are unreferenced, as is the entire section on surface connections. There is no reference for the station's opening date. In the "Public art" section, the name of the artist and the locations of the pieces within the station are not included in the given reference. That reference is a self-published source anyway; unless there is some special reason it can be considered reliable, it shouldn't be used.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Articles on operational railway stations should generally include at least one, if not multiple, sections about the station's facilities, train service at the station, and the area the station serves. Aside from the sections on public art and bus connections, none of this information is present in this article. The article will need some major content additions in the areas I mentioned to have broad coverage of the topic.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
    The image in the infobox needs a caption.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Sorry, but the article still needs too much work at this time for me to put it on hold. I encourage you to expand the article and renominate it later though.

Reviewer: TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bessarion station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bessarion_station&oldid=1206270538"