Talk:London Underground/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's get cracking. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go and note issues below (also check my edit summaries for possible explanations as I go): Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~...now the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines~~ ~~(lead) - I'd link the lines here.~~

The Underground serves 270 stations and 402 kilometres (250 mi) of track... - "serves the stations" ok, though not fond of the verb, but "serves the track"?? I think this needs rewording. Nothing is jumping out at me though.... Maybe the answer is to shift the number of stations to the next sentence which actually discusses station-count.

In history section, first para, I presume ref 10 references the lot. What I often do here is add a commented out text after the ref noting the ref covers the whole para or previous 'x' sentences (In case of splitting or adding other material later)

In The first underground railways, second para uncited.

actually looking at that paragraph, the material concerning Pearson looks to be a little repetitive and somewhat convoluted. I think it could be folded down a bit. I am happy to have a go at this if you can't see it.

In The first underground railways, third para has only one cite, and some interesting stuff there which'd be good to reference.

In The first underground railways, fourth para uncited. I am not sure "the District" needs bolding (should be generally restricted to the lead)

In The first underground railways, fifth para has only one cite.

This caused widespread disruption and required the demolition of several properties on the surface - only several? that doesn't sound like much - do you mean several significant or historic ones?

In The first underground railways, sixth, seventh and eighths paras need more cites.

In the First tube lines bit, first para uncited.

Integration section - paras 1,2, and 3 uncited.

last four or five paras of the Integration section are a bit listy in terms of what happened. Any ability to add overall demand or other themes to make it tie together would be good.

London Transport all uncited.

The books from which pages are cited in the references section should not be in a further reading section as they are integral to the previous section. I generally call them Cited texts but that is my personal preference as it is the least ambiguous term I have found. I am not too fussed what you call them as long as it is made clear they are some form of reference. For any remaining, it'd be good to state a reason why they are needed in the article at all (I am open minded here)

More later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay here's the thing - the article pretty comprehensive (I can't see any glaring omissions) and the structure and prose are pretty good. One thing I find is that on these articles you find information is wrong surprisingly frequently when you start checking even obvious things - hence I really think it is necessary to have it ship-shape with inlined references. This is one of the problems with nominating an article you haven't worked on. I think I'll ping several contributors who've supplied material over the years and see if we get any luck. If no-one replies I might have to fail it (this is no big deal, it can be renominated any time...and will get picked up quickly to be reviewed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments having been pinged:

One of the reasons that this has not been nominated previously by one of the Wikiproject London Transport participants is that it needs some balancing of the text to ensure that repetitions and duplications with articles such as History of the London Underground, Metropolitan Railway and Underground Electric Railways Company of London are removed.
The references are in need of work, some of the formatting is inconsistent in style (contrast 3 and 4 with 17 and 18) or broken (10 and 11). Others are incomplete, needing publishers or access dates, and some have a full book cite whilst most are short form. There are a number of blogs used as sources. These aren't usually acceptable.
The "Integration" section needs a Main article: link to Underground Electric Railways Company of London .
There is currently no mention of the two most important people in the Underground's history: Lord Ashfield and Frank Pick. Other people needing a mention include Edward Watkin, Edgar Speyer and James Henry Greathead.

--DavidCane (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I picked this up as the reviewer. As this would be an important article to do well and get right, I am happy to loosen the time criteria and leave open for a while. If it sounds like there is just too much to do, then I can just fail it now and see if folks move to address these issues at their own pace, and re-nominate at their leisure. I am happy to do either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Images need WP:ALT text.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Look, I think alot of good work's been done on this article, but I am acknowledging David Cane's comments above.

Essentially:

. Large swathes need referencing.
. Historical figures noted above should be discussed

Anyway, at least this GA review has provided a game plan toward GA status, which someone can work on without a strict time limit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]