Talk:Rye railway station (East Sussex)

Rye railway station (East Sussex) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 20, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Trains: Stations / in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Rye railway station (East Sussex) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 November 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that both Rye railway station (pictured) and its signal box are Grade II listed?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rye railway station (East Sussex).

Wikipedia

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rye railway station (East Sussex)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kj cheetham (talk · contribs) 12:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review, may take a few days. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, this is well written, so I've gotten through it faster than I expected. I want do to another quick skim over it, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to pass this later on today. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
No obvious MoS issues. Well written.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Has a refs section. No copyvio issues. Source spot check done (see below), all fine.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Suitably focused. Major aspects all covered.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images are appropriate with captions. No alt parameters, but not needed for GA.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Optional minor grammar issues[edit]

Should "single track" be hypenated when referring to a section in the lede?

Yes, per Single-track railway and by "single-track" used in the parent Marshlink line, already a GA

"by footbridge" to "by a footbridge"?

I think this would make more sense. "By footbridge" specifies a mode of transport cf. "by level crossing" but "by a" scans better

"it was estimated a" to "it was estimated that a"

Agreed

"criticised as it has created" to "criticised as having created"

I've rewritten this sentence, using this sort of grammar usually invites a second look.

Commas don't seem right in The ground floor is constructed of Flemish bond brown brick, the first floor is made of timber with weatherboard cladding and it has a slate roof.?

Copy edited

Should re-appeared be hyphenated?

No. As this was a recent edit of mine (dealing with events less than a year ago), I have a feeling the auto-correction in macOS Safari got in the way (as it has an annoying tendency to do).

-Kj cheetham (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all of the suggestions here, they are all worth doing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

I thought about suggesting a collapsed map or two like Template:Marshlink Line RDT and/or the signal box being listed as a separate entity in an infobox, but absolutely not essential. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks of sources[edit]

1. fine 3. fine 16. fine enough 18. fine 22. fine 26. fine 30. fine

I don't have any of the 4 books, so taking on good faith those refs are fine. I did check the books exist. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.