# Talk:Yatton railway station

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yatton railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 19:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found.
Linkrot: two found and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
"The station was originally built, as the name suggests, to serve passengers for Clevedon, who would travel on by road. " I don't see how the name Yatton suggests this.  Perhaps add "as originally named". Done
Fixed. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of stray single sentences, which should be consolidated into paragraphs.
Better? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I can still see several stray sentences. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
There is not a single lone sentence left that I can see. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Generally prose is good and apart from the points above, compliant with key elements of the MoS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Two dead links found as noted above.
I have fixed the SCRP one, but have not done the other - I think this is a temporary problem with APCOA's website, as the link is still listed when you search for Yatton, but redirects to their homepage. A brief check of other car parks also revealed the same behaviour. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Otherwise references well formatted, appear to be RS, no evidence of OR, spotchecks support statements.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Good coverage, but not sure if the Incidents section is necessary. These are minor incidents, not of any encyclopaedic nature. Done
Not entirely happy about removing it, but I accept they're fairly minor. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Fair and unbiased.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Images from Commons, correctly tagged and licensed and captioned.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the fixes, I am happy to list this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yatton 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/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)