Talk:Charles/MGH station/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 06:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
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:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- 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:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
[edit]- "Three southbound trains collided inside the Beacon Hill Tunnel just south of the station on August 1, 1975, injuring 132 passengers." - this doesn't fit in 'Modifications'. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 07:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there's no better place to put it, as the history is more or less chronological. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Any modifications made after this? Also, one thing can be done, making a separate section 'Incidents' and describing it as the incident seems serious. (mainly suggested by epicgenius in discord) Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 15:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the section title to mention the MBTA, as I don't think a separate heading is needed for a one-line summary of that collision. Does that work? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it's better now. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 05:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the section title to mention the MBTA, as I don't think a separate heading is needed for a one-line summary of that collision. Does that work? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Any modifications made after this? Also, one thing can be done, making a separate section 'Incidents' and describing it as the incident seems serious. (mainly suggested by epicgenius in discord) Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 15:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there's no better place to put it, as the history is more or less chronological. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- If possible, rewrite them "...replaced the BERy in 1947. In 1965, the MBTA designed..." as the years, 1965 is right after 1947. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 12:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Done
