Talk:British Rail Class 700/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RonaldDuncan (talk · contribs) 14:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My initial impression going through the article is that it is at good article.

My one comment is that the section on bogies could do with a link to Bogie so that people that do not know about bogies can find out more.RonaldDuncan (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC) -- DONE[reply]

TODO - Some ref problems see see https://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=British_Rail_Class_700 RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the changes ref 14 ( ref name="bom" / ) still has links to rail.co which is now a spam site. There is also the link to the archived version of the article, please can you remove the links to the original thanks RonaldDuncan (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC) -- DONE[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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Thanks for all your work on this article.

@RonaldDuncan and Pkbwcgs: the following sfn links are broken: Network Rail & ARUP 2009a, Network Rail & ARUP 2011a. Overall, it's unclear which of the 2009 and 2011 citations are a and b. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: Thanks for raising the issue, I will look into it tomorrow and try to solve the problem. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was broken four years ago by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) in this edit; I have fixed it with this edit. If you want the suffix letters to be visible in the long refs, remove the |year= parameters and restore the letters to the |date= params. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]