Talk:Holborn Viaduct railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 12:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

The article complies with MOS policies on grammar, as well as general layout and structure. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses multiple reputable sources for reference, and does not appear to incorporate any original research. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) 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)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to satisfactorily cover all aspects of its topic for which encyclopedic information with reputable sourcing can be reasonably found. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article does not appear to showcase any biased viewpoints regarding any aspect of its subject. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Since at least March 2017, according to the most recent revisions, the article has not been subjected to any form of disruptive editing such as edit warring or the like. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

All five image files currently used in the article are freely licensed, and serve relevant illustrative purposes within the article's context. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

After reading over this article, and making a few slight grammatical tweaks, I believe it satisfies the criteria, and thereby qualifies as a GA. Congratulations! We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]