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

Reviewer: FallingGravity ( talk · contribs) 07:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• FallingGravity, thanks very much fore reviewing this. - mattbuck ( Talk) 11:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Well written ✗ Fail
  • "The BPRP ran in to trouble" → "The BPRP ran into trouble"

    Done. - mattbuck ( Talk) 11:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • "Ove the course of the war" → "Over(?) the course of the war"

    Done. - mattbuck ( Talk) 11:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • "Service levels had decreased slightly by 1955 to 28 from Bristol" Minor nitpick, but at first it seems like the service levels decreased by 1955.

    Done. - mattbuck ( Talk) 11:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • "The last remaining station building, the old parcels office, is threatened with demolition." Who or what is threatening the building with demolition?

    That's very nitpicky (my hero!), but done. - mattbuck ( Talk) 11:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • "declined an option" Where did this option come from?

    It was part of the original contract. - mattbuck ( Talk) 11:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

    I have now amended this in all articles that use that text. - mattbuck ( Talk) 10:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Verifiable
  • Just looking at the references, there are a lot of errors, mostly external links in work parameters. Also the hidden categories say there's some Extra text in some of the references.

    I think that's new, I've been using external links in the work parameter for years and it hasn't been a problem before. I've seen Rodw removing some from other articles, I'll remove these. - mattbuck ( Talk) 11:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • There also seems to be a problem with <ref name=bids>.

    Hm, not sure how I missed that. Fixed. - mattbuck ( Talk) 11:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Ref #8 is currently a dead link.

    Typo in the url. Fixed. - mattbuck ( Talk) 19:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Images ✓ Pass
  • They look good and I didn't see anything wrong with the licenses.
• Broad and Neutral ✓ Pass
  • I don't see any problems and it's a pretty extensive article on the subject.
• Closing remarks
  • Sorry this took a little while to close. Almost all concerns I've found that would hinder GA status have been resolved by nominator. I'm not really an expert on the subject but I think this article does the station some justice. FallingGravity ( talk) 15:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

    FallingGravity, your efforts are much appreciated. My thanks. - mattbuck ( Talk) 15:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply