Talk:Bristol Temple Meads railway station/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "The number of people entering and leaving the station in the twelve months to March 2007 was more than 6.5 million, an increase of nearly 1.5 million in four years." - this sentence is better started "More than 6.5 million people...". "There are eight tracks serving passenger platforms but most are numbered separately at each end so the platform numbers run from 1 to 15." - this whole sentence strikes me as awkward... it should be 2 or three sentences.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "Ahead is the main station building and to the right a flat area marks to site of the B&ER station. Arches beneath this area have been used for storage purposes and provide an emergency exit from the station subway which is often used when line closures necessitate the transfer of railway passengers to road coaches." - not referenced. Internet references should be standardised using {{cite web}}

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   "Opened on August 31, 1840, it was designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel as the western terminus of the, 7 ft 0¼ in (2,140 mm) broad gauge, Great Western Railway, from London Paddington station." - might want to introduce Brunel as a British railway engineer. Also, the station is the western terminus of the... what?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   "Brunel's original station on the left is now dominated by Fox's 1870s extension" - the NPOVness of this particular caption is in question; better to merely identify the two structures. "At the top of the slope an entrance to the covered car park marks the junction between the original terminus and the 1870s extension, highlighting just how short Brunel's station was." - I don't think the cover's main purpose was to highlight how short the original station was... is that comparison appropriate here to begin with? "As would be expected for such an important station," - not necessary

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A good read and good quality for such a long article. Let me know when the changes are in. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tackled the prose and NPOV issues in the Lead and Description sections. I have also made some changes to the Lead and History sections stimulated by the covearge comments, but would welcome a fresh pair of eyes. The Refs need a more detailed check. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ive sorted a few of the refs into cite web format.— Rod ^talk 14:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've marked off a few things. I'd still mention Brunel was a railway engineer in the intro; most of us haven't heard of him. —Rob (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Second railway platform?

Is there one, per a comment added in a recent edit? —Rob (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

By second platform, do you mean platform 2? There is such a place; the Lead is correct in saying: platform 2 is not signalled for passenger trains, while this is expanded in the Description to describe it as: another bay platform but ... is not signalled for passenger services and is now only used for stabling empty trains.

You can see it in the Image:Bristol Temple Meads from Bath Road bridge.jpg at the top of the Twetieth Century section – it is the track on the left that is overgrown by weeds! Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just wondered why someone added the comment then. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm the guilty party here, and have been busy elsewhere (hence belated response). I only leave in-line comments like this when I 'know' that another editor is watching my proof-reading efforts of his work and hence can choose to respond quickly without starting a detailed talk-page discussion...

In this case the 'first platform island' is mentioned, followed by the 'third platform island', and the 'final platform island'. So, what about the 'second platform island'??

EdJogg (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)