Talk:Ebbw Valley Railway/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inital comments[edit]

This looks to be quite a reasonable article that should make GA this time around.

I have a few minor comments and at this stage I'm mostly going to highlight "problems". I'm leaving the WP:Lead until last; otherwise, if I don't make a comment here about a particular section that probably means that I regard it as being OK. I will provide an overall summary at the end. Pyrotec (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History -

Ref 5 (Daniels & Dench 1973) is a book, so you aught to provide a page number, or numbers, such as in refs 9 and 10.

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly about the post-Beaching line. Its history under GWR and BR represents about three quarters of one paragraph.

No further comments.

Overall sumary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive article on a post-Beaching railway line.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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:
Well referenced.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well referenced.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on producing a fine article. I'm awarding it GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]