Talk:Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway/GA1

Good article criteria

Well written: Mostly, some easily fixable issues found

One concern, in the lead is the statement "The section between Paisley and Glasgow was jointly owned." by whom? In my opinion, the who should be answered or the statement removed. I suggest: "The section between Paisley and Glasgow was jointly owned by a company who proposed a similar line at the same time."

Per WP:MOSNUM (Manual of Style, Numbers section) 21 MPH should have metric conversion. I suggest using the conversion templates, like this 21 miles (34 km). See Template:Convert

The maximum fare for passengers at the time was 2d, 1½d and 1d for first, second and third class respectively. My understanding of the MOS is that for UK articles any currency used besides £ should be explained on the first instance.

"reopened again some years later" This is awkward, just say reopened or later reopened, the rest is redundant.

Factually accurate and verifiable: Found issues, but easily fixable

Citation #36 does not give enough information to verify. Please expand this citation.

Citation #37 Citations to the website should include: the access date, publication date (if known), and the publisher. The information given currently is not sufficient. See the documentation for template:Cite web template for a sample of what should be included. In this case I suggest doing something like this:

British Rail (ScotRail) (1987). "The Rebirth of AyrLine: Electrification to Ayr / Ardrossan / Largs - 1986/1987". British Rail (ScotRail) (hosted by Railwaysarchive.co.uk). Retrieved 2008-05-14.

I'm a fan of using these citation templates for all sources (Cite book, Cite web, etc.), but this is not a requirement only my personal preference. I like them as they ensure consistency and that all the information required is given.

Are and ISBN or OCLC code available for the two books by Hamilton Ellis? If not my preference would be to state "None Found" or "Not Applicable" just so everybody knows this is due to the age of the works, not sloppy research or anything.

Broad in its coverage:Yes
NPOV:Mostly, did find two minor issues

~~much~~ nearer (words like much require a source or could be considered WP:OR.

"Raising capital proved no problem for the committee" could be considered OR or POV, how about "The committee raised sufficient capital..."

Stable: Yes-No edit wars, last edits were in april and were mostly copyedits
Images: Yes-7 images used on page (not counting the PD graphics used to make the map) All 7 had PD,CC or GNU license, no apparent copyright violations.

Other suggestions

These have no bearing on Good Article status, but are friendly suggestions:

I suggest reviewing the portion of the MOS on fractions. I read it to see if it applies, and to be honest, I can't tell. I've never reviewed an article with fractions before, so I'm not familiar with the rules.

Suggest renaming header 1850-1923: Glasgow and South Western ~~days~~

"the former GPK&AR had several of its stations closed", suggest instead "several stations closed"

In my opinion some sentences in the section 1850-1923: Glasgow and South Western days have parentheses that that should be replaced with commas or dashed.

Despite this,comma, the line remained open for long distance passenger services such as an overnight train from Glasgow to London via Paisley

The last item under sources should be moved to a new section called External links, unless this is actually used as a source in the article.

FYI: The link checker utilities used for Good and Featured article reviews (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/cgi-bin/linkchecker.py) is frowning upon this link because it redirects: http://www.railscot.co.uk/Glasgow_Paisley_Kilmarnock_and_Ayr_Railway/frame.htm There is nothing wrong with this, but if you want to submit this article for FA status, it may come up as they rely on this tool to verify the integrity of all links on each article being reviewed. You might want to link to the direct link.

Overall, well done. Congratulations. Once the above mentioned sourcing and MOS issues are addressed I would most willingly promote this article.Dave (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I'll work on the changes you suggest over the weekend unless someone else does it before then. Just one thing to mention about the currency usage: it is actually pounds sterling, only pre-decimalisation, however I will work in a link to something like this to give some context. --- Dreamer ⁸⁴ 09:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just let me know when you are ready to have me take another look. Also, I will be without internet access for a while this month, so if I don't respond promptly please wait or find another review to take my place.Dave (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Dave is unable to respond, please leave a note at WT:GAN or on my talk page and someone can take another look at this. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have limited internet access now, but expect things to be back to normal the first week of June. If you can wait that long I'll finish the review then.Dave (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed the GA for this article. For the record, I still have issues with the statement "Raising capital proved no problem for the committee" and feel this should be replaced with "The committee raised sufficient capital...", however it's not a big enough of a deal to affect the nomination. Dave (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]