Talk:Barca d'Alva railway station
Barca d'Alva railway station was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 11, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Barca d'Alva railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 07:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is thoroughly researched and clearly has potential to reach Good Article status. However, it is not there yet, and needs more improvement than can reasonably be expected during a GA review. Two of the Good Article criteria are not met:
- 1a (
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
): As indicated by the cleanup banner, the translation quality here is not sufficient for GA. For example, there are untranslated phrases likeReal orden
, mistranslations likeautomotives
, and awkward wording likewas re-established and it was also reopened.
- 1b (
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections...
: Two sentences is not a sufficient lede for a 2,500-word article, and it does not accurately summarize the article.
There are also issues with criteria 2c (several unsourced statements/quotes) and 3a (no information about the station building itself).
Rough translation banner
[edit]I have attempted to address the issues of the rough translation banner. In this I have been severely hampered by the fact that reference 4 (Sousa, 16 September 1927) which is used 21 times within the article, no longer appears to be online. It has not been archived on the Wayback machine, as every attempt since 2016 reports "Page Not Found". I have been attempting to improve the grammar by looking at what the Portuguese sources actually say, rather than the translations from the Portuguese wiki article. If anyone cares to comment on what has been achieved so far, I would be grateful of feedback. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)