Talk:Holborn tube station/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 15:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so looks like I'm reviewing the article. It is kind of interesting because I used to live nearby, and it seems like a good article, but I will reread it.

These are the criteria that I'm going to review.

Based on the mistakes I found in the article, I will give up to two weeks to change the article. Then, I will reassess it. If the problems are not fixed by then, then this will fail GAN. I will check on this every day to see if they are changed: if it is fixed, then it will pass GAN.

  • Which mistakes are you referring to?--DavidCane (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. Well-written:
    the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
    it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
    it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
    it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    it addresses the main aspects of the topic
    it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Note: This counts the 'Incident' section, which I assume is part of the article.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
    images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 15:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The more specific bit[edit]

General[edit]

The images
  • There are only four images. Two of them are of a map, one is a track layout, and one is the picture of an image. There are no images of the station platform itself. Done
    • Not sure I understand what you mean by "picture of an image" and there is only one map (in the info box).
    • I note that you have added images of two of the platforms, but I'm not sure that the article warrants these given that the platforms are not unusual. They also don't really belong in the history section.--DavidCane (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The references
  • Three of them are bare external links. Specifically, numbers 11, 13, and 14.
    • All three of these are formatted with descriptions and retrieval dates, so they are not really bare urls and are formatted satisfactorily in accordance with External_links#How_to_link.--DavidCane (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Where's the reference for this note? 'The GNP&BR tunnels passed under those of the CLR.'
    • I don't believe it really needs a reference as it can be seen from the configuration of the station - you go down the first set of escalators to the first vestibule, which gives access to the Central line platforms; then down to the the second set of escalators to the Piccadilly line platforms, but I have added one citing page 240 of Badsley-Ellis where the discussion of the layout of the GNP&BR station mentions the platforms being below the CLR.--DavidCane (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Found two dead links. Numbers are 38 and (in External Links) the Photographic Archive.
    • I see these have been fixed. I've changed the external links one to use the current version of the site rather than the waybackmachine version.--DavidCane (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Prose[edit]

  • In the section 'Services', why is there a listing of rolling stock that serve the station? That is not notable, and not many people care. If they wanted to see the rolling stock for the line, they would go to the line's article.
    • This is included as the other GA tube station articles also have it. I think it was requested in the GA review for the first of these.--DavidCane (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • In the section 'Station modernised', there is a whole paragraph that is unsourced. Specifically,

Like many other central London Underground stations, Holborn was modernised in the early 1930s to replace the lifts with escalators. The station frontages on Kingsway and High Holborn were partially reconstructed to modernist designs by Charles Holden with the granite elements replaced with plain Portland stone façades perforated with glazed screens. The lifts were removed and a spacious new ticket hall was provided giving access to a bank of four escalators down to an intermediate concourse for the Central line platforms. A second bank of three escalators continues down to the Piccadilly line platforms.

  • I've added some repeats of references already included elsewhere.--DavidCane (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The pretty long section 'Construction' only has six references, an average of one per paragraph. More refs need to be added.
    • I think the referencing is adequate as it covers everything needed, adding more would just duplicate the same ones:
      • The first paragraph has two references which cover the whole of the information in the paragraph.
      • Everything in the second paragraph which explains the development of the station layout is covered by the first reference. The rest could also be cited to the same source, if you want, but is illustrated by the station diagram any way.
      • The third paragraph is again entirely covered by the two existing references.
      • The fourth paragraph is largely explanatory. The fact that there was no interchange is covered elsewhere, but I have repeated a ref to cover this.
--DavidCane (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • One fourths of the lead is about what is close to the station.
  • The lead is short compared to the length of the article. The lead needs to be expanded.
    • I've expanded the lead a bit.--DavidCane (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The 'Services' section has a lot of trivia. Are the train frequencies necessary? The good thing is that this is at least referenced.
    • Again this was something that was requested in an earlier GA review for a tube station article, so this just follows the existing model.--DavidCane (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Layout[edit]

  • The two new pictures that feature the platforms create white space in the "References" section.
    • I see that these have been moved. As above, I'm not convinced that they are needed.--DavidCane (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Outcome[edit]

  • I have checked the article. I see that all issues have been resolved. Congratulations, this article is now a Good article Good Article. I will do the necessary changes right now. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 02:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks.--DavidCane (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)