Talk:Gunnersbury Triangle

Gunnersbury Triangle has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 22, 2015. (Reviewed version).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gunnersbury Triangle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Duplication Detector on Labs found no cause for concern. I also read each individual online source. AGF on offline sourcing.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The Habitats section is an informative and well-sourced list that is pertinent to the subject matter. Layout conforms to WP MOS, and lead appropriately summarizes the article. Neutral and compliant. Fiction does not apply to this article.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Bibliography, Notes and References sections are appropriately formatted.

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
Content looks good, cited in every paragraph. All quotations in the article are also sourced.

C. No original research:
None that I could spot.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Primary editor is Chiswick Chap, with minor edits by others.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
One non-free image rationale OK per WP:FUC; all other images uploaded at Commons and appropriately licensed.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
In addition to images used in sections, there are two galleries at the bottom of the article. The Activities gallery is well-captioned and appropriate in its depiction, with links to WP articles where necessary. The Biodiversity gallery is excellent in capturing the flora and fauna, with most having links to matching WP articles on each subject.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Everything looks good. Happy to pass this. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gunnersbury Triangle. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acton curve railway

Not being a railway history person - should there be a link to the Dudding Hill line? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking at the map there, that's the right line. Linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]