Talk:Bessarion station/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I'm sorry, but I have to fail the article outright. The article has potential, but it entirely lacks coverage of certain topics and still needs quite a bit work to be a GA. I suggest you look at the other rail station GAs included here; they should give you an idea of how a good railway station article should look.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "When the site was excavated the soil was found to be contaminated with various levels of hydrocarbons. This was removed and decontaminated during the construction of the subway station." I assume "this" refers to the soil, but it would be unclear if "hydrocarbons" wasn't plural, and it's awkward wording at any rate. "Due to budget overruns during which had come up on several occasions..." The word "during" needs to be removed. "...there were many suggestions to remove it from the original plan." What suggestions, and by whom? The last two sentences of the lead don't appear anywhere else in the article. They should also be in a section on station services and facilities, which the article doesn't have yet; see my comments on criterion 3. The section on bus connections would be better off as prose, as there are not may connections and they can be described in a few sentences.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   There are still several statements in the article which need references. The last two sentences in the lead are unreferenced, as is the entire section on surface connections. There is no reference for the station's opening date. In the "Public art" section, the name of the artist and the locations of the pieces within the station are not included in the given reference. That reference is a self-published source anyway; unless there is some special reason it can be considered reliable, it shouldn't be used.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Articles on operational railway stations should generally include at least one, if not multiple, sections about the station's facilities, train service at the station, and the area the station serves. Aside from the sections on public art and bus connections, none of this information is present in this article. The article will need some major content additions in the areas I mentioned to have broad coverage of the topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

   The image in the infobox needs a caption.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Sorry, but the article still needs too much work at this time for me to put it on hold. I encourage you to expand the article and renominate it later though.

Reviewer: TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)