Talk:Lawrence Hill railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 06:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

1. File:Lawrence Hill station geograph-2913053-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg = image hosted on Commons, appropriately licensed and attributed. Y.
2. File:Lawrence Hill Station Bristol at night (1964).jpg = image from Flickr, hosted on Commons, appropriately reviewed at Commons. Y.
3. File:121135 at Lawrence Hill.jpg = flickr image, appropriately reviewed on Commons. Y.
4. File:Lawrence Hill Station, 1979.jpg = flickr image, appropriately reviewed on Commons. Y.
5. File:Railway line view to Lawrence Hill 2012 - Flickr - Greater Bristol Metro Rail.jpg = flickr image, appropriately reviewed on Commons. Y.
6. File:Lawrence Hill Station Bristol 2000.jpg = flickr image, appropriately reviewed on Commons. Y.
7. File:67002 Lawrence Hill Station, Bristol 2000.jpg = flickr image, appropriately reviewed on Commons. Y.
8. File:Lawrence Hill Station in the snow.jpg = flickr image, appropriately reviewed on Commons. Y.
9. File:Hugh llewelyn 153 305 (6702959723).jpg = flickr image, appropriately reviewed on Commons. Y.
10. File:170433 at Edinburgh Waverley.JPG = original image from Commons, checks out okay. Y.

— Cirt (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your listing of the Edinburgh Waverley image confused me - it took me a while to find where on the page that was! -mattbuck (Talk) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh, no worries, — Cirt (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Stability review

1. Upon inspection of article edit history going back over six months, no glaring issues. Y.
2. Looked at talk page edit history and present version of talk page. No outstanding issues. Only polite discussion observed. Y.

— Cirt (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review tabulation

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.	Wording is indeed clear and succinct throughout.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good layout and style presentation.
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.	Proper use of references for information provided.
	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).	Nice use of in-line citations to WP:RS sources, standardized citation style is excellent.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Major aspects addressed appropriately.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral presentation throughout, with matter of fact wording given.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Passes here, see above.
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.	Passes here, see above.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Passes here, see above.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great job overall!

Thankyou kindly. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)