Talk:Kingston upon Hull/GA2
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Initial thoughts
[edit]The article looks reasonable except for that short subsection, Hull Tramways. Its only two sentences on tramways, so its far too short, not even a proper paragraph. It then mentions trolley bus 1936-45 (full stop); but there is nothing about trolley buses. Neither tramways nor trolley buses are mentioned in Transport and infrastructure - which appears to be entirely concerned with present day matters. Either the Hull Tramways sub section / two sentences should go; or do the job properly, discuss trolley buses and what came after. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
main review
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive, wide-ranging article
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- A fair number of the in-line citations, particularly Ref 5, do not provide book page numbers. This needs to be addressed.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)