# Talk:Worle railway station

This review is transcluded from Talk:Worle railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 06:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


### Image review
File:Worle railway station MMB 21 220034.jpg = original image from Commons. Y.
File:Worle railway station MMB 09 158952.jpg = original image from Commons. Y.
File:First Day at Worle Station.jpg = image from Flickr, hosted at Commons. Appropriately reviewed at Commons. Y.
File:Worle railway station MMB 12.jpg = original image from Commons. Y.
File:Worle railway station MMB 18.jpg = original image from Commons. Y.
Nice use of original images! — Cirt (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


### Stability review
Upon inspection of article edit history, going back over two months, the article is stable. Y.
Looked over talk page edit history going back to 2007, no outstanding issues. Y.
— Cirt (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
NOTE: Please reply, below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


### Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of January 23, 2014, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
Writing quality is adequate overall, though a few suggestions:
Flow could be improved with a bit more subsections.
Consider breaking up Services into two sub subsections, keeping the parent sect Services.
Suggest also breaking up History into two sub subsections, keeping parent sect History.
Lede intro sect: Recommend expanding lede intro sect, per WP:LEAD, summarizing entire article contents so lede intro sect functions adequately as standalone summary of body text of article. Also, suggest having at least two paragraphs for the lede sect.
2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout, great use of cite formatting.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects, will have to be updated as new events impact subject.
4. Neutral point of view?: Written in neutral tone with matter of fact wording.
5. Article stability? See above, passes here.
6. Images?: See above, passes here.
Great job overall, only a few relatively simple things to address.Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Please reply, below the entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding breaking up the history and services sections, I don't see there as being enough content to justify this. There isn't an obvious break point in the services section, and in the history section the only possible break points are after the first paragraph or two from the end, leading to very lopsided sections. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, on 2nd look maybe not the Services sect, but the History sect could be broken to two, yes. — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
It's six paragraphs, which is not very long, and I honestly cannot see a good break point. Paragraph 1 is a bit of pre-station, paragraph 2 follows from 1 and leads in to 3 - a break point between 2 and 3 would seem weird. Between 3 and 4? That's the main part of the station history. Between 4 and 5? Again, still follows on. Between 5 and 6? That leaves a 1 paragraph section which is bad form. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good, no problems. Thank you for the helpful explanation. — Cirt (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
What would you suggest be added to the lead section? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll respectfully leave that editorial judgment up to you. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
That's not especially helpful, but tried. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I just wanted to see how you would do it, first, before making my own specific recommendations about it. I'll go take another look soon. — Cirt (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You may want to look again at stability requirement. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Ulp! Well, that's all that's left at the moment. If you two can demonstrate that whatever issues are amicably resolved, in talk page discussion, I don't see any other outstanding issues. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Stability not in danger, per this DIFF. Therefore, Stability Review portion of GA Review is still passing, per prior review, above. — Cirt (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


### Passed as GA
Passed as GA. 
Thanks for being quick and responsive to my recommendations, above, whether that be directly addressing them, or in some cases helpfully explaining a differing opinion. 
Either way, most appreciated! :) 
Congratulations, 
— Cirt (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! and thank you Cirt. -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Worle railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314050333/http://www.walesandwest.co.uk/ to http://www.walesandwest.co.uk/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120002540/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Campaign-trains-Bristol-Temple-Meads-half-hour/story-14446079-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Campaign-trains-Bristol-Temple-Meads-half-hour/story-14446079-detail/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Worle railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016121452/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/MP-takes-drive-better-rail-services/story-13697379-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/MP-takes-drive-better-rail-services/story-13697379-detail/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)