Talk:North Philadelphia station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 18:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is great.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead sufficiently summarizes the article. The second external link is already used in the article as not just a citation, but the second-most used citation. Normally, such a link should not be in the external links section, but I think this link falls within the exception in WP:ELDUP: "Exceptions—websites that can be both references and external links—include...websites that are specifically devoted to the topic, contain multiple subpages, and meet the criteria for links to be avoided."
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references section is properly formatted.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All references appear to be reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No apparent OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There was no apparent copyright violations or plagiarism when checking the citations. I checked the article against the first two references ([1] and [2]) using the dup detector and copyvio detector and it checked out fine.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers all major aspects of the subject. However, in my opinion, more details should be provided in the "Layout and service" section: bus connections (mentioned in infobox); parking (mentioned in infobox & "New station and reuse" subsection); and describe the station's surroundings (attractions, businesses).
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	All content is appropriate and nothing should be split into a separate article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No neutrality issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images have valid, free licenses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant. While the inclusion of images is not a GA criteria, a map of the station and surroundings would be a great addition.
	7. Overall assessment.	Promoted to GA. I added one reference, which would have been the only thing preventing this article from being promoted to GA status.

Excellent, thank you for the review! If you wish to promote it, I believe you'll want to change the one symbol in this table, and change the parameter on the talk page to "pass". Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AHeneen: I just got a Legobot notification indicating the GA review had failed (I assume it's set on an automatic timer), but your comments above make it appear you intended to pass the article. Could you clear this up? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AHeneen, Pi.1415926535: I was confused about this as well. It looks like the issue may just be not turning the "n" to "y" in the no original research field. The comment appears to indicate there's not a problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that AHeneen never completed the review process—doing the actual promotion to GA—by changing the "GA nominee" template on the article's talk page to the "GA" template used for listed articles when they pass their review. (Pi.1415926535's suggestions on June 29 wouldn't have helped; the wikitable is just a useful checklist for people looking at the review page, and no automated process looks at it.) The full instructions for winding up a successful GAN are at WP:GANI#Passing. Since the review was still active today, when the article was moved, the review seemed to disappear when the bot looked for it, which is what caused the "failed" message; subsequently moving the review page to the new article name "healed" things in that the bot could again link the nomination and review page. What's needed now is for AHeneen to properly complete the review, which includes all six steps listed on the instructions page under "Passing". BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about forgetting to update the talk page. I've completed 17 other GA reviews over the last two years, so I knew the steps to complete the review. A couple time's I have forgotten to change the class in the wikiproject banners, but this is the first time I have forgotten to change the talk page and add to the Good Articles page. Again, sorry. AHeneen (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]