Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
I will be doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles ( talk) 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The article is very informative and comprehensive. I'll outline a few concerns that I have here:
1. Per WP:LEAD the lead is to contain a summary of all the main points of the article. In this case the lead should be expanded to conform to this requirement. Specifically I do not see anything in the lead about: the history of the project, and the cost crises in 1998, and 2001, and future plans for the project.
2. In the Project section at the end there is a statement that on Oct. 12, 2009 it was announced that 16 billion pounds of stock were to be sold to cover public debt. What was the result of this? Has the sale happened? What is the current financial situation of the project?
3. Watch overlinking
Channel Tunnel. It's a small thing but I noted at least 5 times in the article where the term was linked.
4. In the St. Pancras station section there is a
citation needed template from December 2009, this should be addressed.
5. There is a brief allusion to "early protests" in the Tunnels subsection of the Infrastructure section. What early protests?
6. There is another
citation needed template in the Southeastern subsection of the Operators section.
7. I'm a little skeptical of the final section, Additional information. Could this be better organized, or folded into the rest of the article. This section is essentially "miscellaneous", with a hodge podge of facts. The information is good and very topical. It just seems like most of it could find a home in other sections. For example, the paragraph on deaths could go either into the Project or Route section, perhaps having a subsection on construction in one of those sections would work. That would also create a place for the second paragraph on construction.
8. There are several dead links in the reference section: Ref. 20 requires a subscription and this should be specified in the ref, ref 38 links to the most recent issue rather than issue 75, refs 37, 43, 79, and 69 are dead links. These will need to be fixed.
In conclusion I feel that this article is very good it just doesn't quite meet the GA Criteria as it currently stands. To boil down the assessment into my make or break issues I would say the lead needs to be expanded, the references need to be fixed and the citation needed templates should be addressed. The rest is more my opinion of the article and wouldn't disqualify it from GA status. I will put the article on hold for one week pending work. If you have questions or concerns please notify me at my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Second Review
I think there has been great progress made. I can't speak to the concerns of the other users and I will ask them to join the conversation at this point. If you address these issues and they are happy with the article from a comprehensive stand point then I'll keep it. H1nkles ( talk) 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Given the work done on the article I will keep it as GA, my thanks to the other reviewers and editors who worked hard to maintain this article at GA Standards. H1nkles ( talk) 17:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
I will be doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles ( talk) 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The article is very informative and comprehensive. I'll outline a few concerns that I have here:
1. Per WP:LEAD the lead is to contain a summary of all the main points of the article. In this case the lead should be expanded to conform to this requirement. Specifically I do not see anything in the lead about: the history of the project, and the cost crises in 1998, and 2001, and future plans for the project.
2. In the Project section at the end there is a statement that on Oct. 12, 2009 it was announced that 16 billion pounds of stock were to be sold to cover public debt. What was the result of this? Has the sale happened? What is the current financial situation of the project?
3. Watch overlinking
Channel Tunnel. It's a small thing but I noted at least 5 times in the article where the term was linked.
4. In the St. Pancras station section there is a
citation needed template from December 2009, this should be addressed.
5. There is a brief allusion to "early protests" in the Tunnels subsection of the Infrastructure section. What early protests?
6. There is another
citation needed template in the Southeastern subsection of the Operators section.
7. I'm a little skeptical of the final section, Additional information. Could this be better organized, or folded into the rest of the article. This section is essentially "miscellaneous", with a hodge podge of facts. The information is good and very topical. It just seems like most of it could find a home in other sections. For example, the paragraph on deaths could go either into the Project or Route section, perhaps having a subsection on construction in one of those sections would work. That would also create a place for the second paragraph on construction.
8. There are several dead links in the reference section: Ref. 20 requires a subscription and this should be specified in the ref, ref 38 links to the most recent issue rather than issue 75, refs 37, 43, 79, and 69 are dead links. These will need to be fixed.
In conclusion I feel that this article is very good it just doesn't quite meet the GA Criteria as it currently stands. To boil down the assessment into my make or break issues I would say the lead needs to be expanded, the references need to be fixed and the citation needed templates should be addressed. The rest is more my opinion of the article and wouldn't disqualify it from GA status. I will put the article on hold for one week pending work. If you have questions or concerns please notify me at my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Second Review
I think there has been great progress made. I can't speak to the concerns of the other users and I will ask them to join the conversation at this point. If you address these issues and they are happy with the article from a comprehensive stand point then I'll keep it. H1nkles ( talk) 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Given the work done on the article I will keep it as GA, my thanks to the other reviewers and editors who worked hard to maintain this article at GA Standards. H1nkles ( talk) 17:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)