Talk:The Witch Way/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aiken (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to have a route article for the Greater Manchester area, but I have a feeling this is quite a way off GA status.

The lead in my opinion doesn't fully summarise the article.
The History section makes up the largest part of the article. Some parts seems extremely detailed (such as how many vehicles were purchased and for how much). Other parts are vague (such as "in 2006" - when in 2006?). It ought to be split up a bit more - for example, have an awards section, other operators, livery description etc. The last sentence isn't even historical, and should be under the current route section.
The rest is basically lists. The route section ought to describe the route, not just list the places. The incidents section looks like trivia and should be split up into other sections.
References need publisher and access dates, and need to be checked for duplicates - for example, ref 18 and 19 are identical and just go to the route home page.

Since this article needs quite a bit of work, I'm going to fail it now, with the hope of seeing it again soon much more ready for GA status. Cheers, Aiken (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting points there, many of them valid ones. My responses are as follows:

The lead does need work, which I intend to do fairly soom.
Vehicles and marketing and Awards have been split out of the history, which does make it read better, and more detail has been added where it was previously non-specific. The last sentence has been removed as the source that previously backed it up is dead.
A route section could describe the route if any sources did, but I can't find one that does. As a temporary measure I've removed it as redundant, as all the content it contained is elsewhere. The incidents section has been renamed to the less trivial Accidents and rewritten as such.

Ensure it's not just in the lead though. Aiken (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the need for publisher and access dates in references, as these aren't a requirement for GA, and some existing ones don't use them (e.g. London Country North East), although I could add these if you're sure it's worth doing. Refs 18 and 19 used to go to different places, but Transdev have remodelled their website and removed the content they used to support, so I've removed them and the newly-unsourced content.

Thing is, you've used publisher for some already and it's inconsistent otherwise. Aiken (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. I borrowed that one from another article that uses {{cite web}} then forgot all about it. You're right, it is inconsistent, so I guess I'd better do the others like you suggested. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this addresses some (or most!) of the problems raised. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now expanded the lead a bit, split route variants into a new section and added an extra image. Hope this helps. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's better but you'd probably be better off getting another person to review this. Aiken (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]