Talk:East Finchley tube station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SSTflyer (talk · contribs) 12:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this. Comments will be posted soon. sst ✈ 12:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section: "the station was completed rebuilt with additional tracks in the late 1930s" – should "completed" be "completely"?

—sst ✈ 12:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--DavidCane (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the Northern Heights project section is completely unsourced. sst ✈ 04:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that the whole paragraph is unsourced but in this case most of the paragraph is unsourced. The picture on the left acts as a reference stating that it consists of 4 platforms. ;) Pinging DavidCane in case he doesn't notice. VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 06:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The station was provided with two additional platforms, giving four in total. The platforms comprise two parallel islands with tracks on both sides." Per WP:FILMPLOT this part does not need to be backed with inline citations, but the rest of the paragraph needs sources. sst ✈ 16:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The London rail atlas may be able to help with that, though not the historical aspect. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This OS Map image shows the station in 1894 with its original two platforms clearly shown. The 1873 map used in the article to show the original "East End" station name also shows the two tracks through the station with platforms on each side, but, because it is a smaller scale, it's not as clear.--DavidCane (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The London Rail Atlas 3rd edition, ISBN 9780711037281, shows the lines to the depot on page 13. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind adding these to the article as citations? sst ✈ 23:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the atlas reference. I'd suggest combining the subsections as I don't think there's enough material to justify the sectioning. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've also put a citation in for the use of both routes to Highgate and a note on the services planned for the line.--DavidCane (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios acceptable
- By the way, the text on Geograph that generates the top copyvio result was actually borrowed from the Wikipedia Highgate tube station article by Oxyman when he posted his photo on Geograph in 2009. The words were something I wrote back in 2005 (diff here) and have reused in the East Finchley article.--DavidCane (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing left would be to add sources to the unsourced paragraph. Placing on hold for 7 days. sst ✈ 05:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering but is there any information available on historical service levels at the station? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I have any information on.--DavidCane (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I see nothing that needs to be fixed regarding prose
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Per criteria. Others may prefer different layouts but this is fine. I am assuming that the words are used from the sources.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Now acceptable after source additions sst ✈ 05:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	WP:AGF for offline sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Now acceptable after source additions sst ✈ 05:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvios confidence 21.3%
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Since this is my first review of an article about a train station, I compared it to other train station GAs. I find the coverage on this article acceptable, though not comprehensive.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article mainly presents facts, and I cannot see any viewpoints.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No current disputes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are either PD or CC-BY-SA 3.0
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to the prose
	7. Overall assessment.	Passed. sst ✈ 05:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]