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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 21:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

I've now completed a quick skim-read of the article, but I've not checked any references/citations or copyright, and on this basis it looks to be a strong GA candidate.

I'm now going to work my way through the article starting at the History section and at the end of the article I'll go back and look at the WP:Lead. At this stage I'll mostly be looking for and commenting on any "problems" that I consider need to be fixed. Pyrotec (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• History
  • untitled subsection -

• Looks OK.

• • Operation, Decline & Extensions -

• These three subsections look OK.

• • Closure & Restoration -

• These two subsections look OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2012

• Route -

Sorry for the delay. I've now restarted the review after a gap of almost one week. I've rechecked some of the earlier sections/subsections and added a few convert templates (mostly on long tons) and a few wikilinks - but everything looks fine. Pyrotec (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This section looks OK.

• Flora and fauna & WP:Lead -

• These two subsections look OK.

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA status. With more work it might make WP:FAC, however I would suggest that consideration been given to a WP:PR first. Pyrotec (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]