Talk:Midland Main Line upgrade/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: JuniperChill (talk · contribs) 12:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 10:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
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. | Lots of sentences need improvement.
| |||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | LEAD: Article has all elements for the lead, provides an accessible overview and adequately describes what the project is, and its current phases. Article also appropriately includes contextual links early on, and lead is appropriately sized.
LAYOUT: Sections are appropriately ordered, no applicable specialised order. Images are appropriately sized. Article also uses emdash or endash where appropriate
This might, however, violate MOS:REDUNDANT. | |||
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||||
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). | Following spot-check of 10/70 sources, sources are reliable. | |||
2c. it contains no original research. | All claims are cited inline | |||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Using the copyvio tool, result of 15.3%. Of which is just phrases and important info | |||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Addresses main aspects of the topic | |||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article does not express any specific point of view | |||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit warring on this page | |||
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. | Images are tagged appropriately with copyright status, OGL and CC4. | |||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||||
7. Overall assessment. |
Discussion
[edit]- Excited to get started! Looks like an interesting topic DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Off the bat, I don't see anything that would cause a quickfail so I'll get right into it DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding MOS:BOLDLEAD, the article title is descriptive, just like the Great Western Main Line upgrade (initially titled 21st century modernisation of the Great Western Main Line) and A9 dualling project. Other names include Midland Main Line railway upgrade (former title), Midland Main Line electrification, MML electrification, etc. It was however the case before [1]. So yes I would say it violates WP:REDUNDANT.
- And the files: I have to remember that much of the electrification scheme was either cancelled (Cardiff to Swansea and Windermere), deferred (Oxford to Didcot/Bristol to Chippenham). From my understanding, the red lines were supposed to be complete by 2019. JuniperChill (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since I have been editing for a while, I will take a pause/break for today. I did the first part of the GA nomination. I should be able to do this tomorrow. JuniperChill (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good so far, I’ll take another look at it when you finish up DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done 1a JuniperChill (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I’ll take a look at it DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- The lead section does not currently comply with MOS:LEADCITE. 86.5.112.204 (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I’ll take a look at it DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done 1a JuniperChill (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good so far, I’ll take another look at it when you finish up DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since I have been editing for a while, I will take a pause/break for today. I did the first part of the GA nomination. I should be able to do this tomorrow. JuniperChill (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.
DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)