# Talk:Redland railway station

In accordance with the Wikipedia Policy on trivia sections, I have removed the 'Trivia' subsection which just contained one point and I did not feel could be merged properly into the article as it wasn't really relavent to the article.
Mojo29 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Redland railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 19:49, 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: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:57, 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 lead does not fully summarize the article, the history section is in adequately summarized.
Is that better? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that will do. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Prose is good, I made a few minor copy-edits.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Well referenced, no sign of OR, spotchecks show that citations support statements.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The incidents section appears to be of no encyclopaedic value. Otherwise good coverage.
I accept the incidents section is not broad coverage, since I have not searched through 100 years of newspapers to try and find references to the station. But I think that dead bodies are quite likely relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but are these incidents of any real relevance? Would they be included in an article on say London Paddington station? Or are they merely things that happened at Redland, but could have happened anywhere.  How are they relevant to this railway station? I shall ask for a second opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Sod it, section nuked. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
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 all from Commons, licensed and captioned.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On hold for seven days for a few minor issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The lead is improved, but I am unhappy about the trivia. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the improvements, I am now happy to list this. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Redland 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
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120708233227/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/100-million-Bristol-Metro-train-network-2016/story-16492523-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/100-million-Bristol-Metro-train-network-2016/story-16492523-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) 18:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Redland 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://archive.is/20130421115448/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Station-work-earns-award-rail-group/story-11286050-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Station-work-earns-award-rail-group/story-11286050-detail/story.html
Added archive https://archive.is/20130505062837/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol-rail-passengers-complain-pay-fares/story-11253716-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol-rail-passengers-complain-pay-fares/story-11253716-detail/story.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413065743/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/uploadedFiles/networkrailcouk/Contents/Improvements/The_Great_Western/WesternVision.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/uploadedFiles/networkrailcouk/Contents/Improvements/The_Great_Western/WesternVision.pdf
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) 12:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)