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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 13:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Interesting topic. I'll take a look over the next few days. SilkTork *^YES! 13:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are observations as I read through. I will give a summary when finished.

• Images are copyright tagged and appropriately captioned, though I have some concerns about the double image in the Filming and broadcast section, with the long caption. Also, I note that there are five images of the train in the article, and little else. It is not a GA requirement, and will pass with the current selection of images, though if some other images could be found, that might help. Perhaps, select only one image in the top right, and use the others to add variety to the article layout. Another consideration might be to reducing some of the train images. Perhaps only use one of the train passing through Newcastle. SilkTork *^YES! 10:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose. I've read through the opening paragraphs of the first section, Background, a few times, and I'm still not clear what is being said. I assume that "contest" refers to the Top Gear event, though it is not clear. "Past-time" is an awkward construction that suggests hobby. I am not sure why the section goes directly into a discussion on the history of Railway companies, as it hasn't yet been explained what is happening. Paragraph 2 starts talking about resurgence for the railways, then goes into what appears to be a timetabled train service, then mentions a specific locomotive before finishing with reference to two different classes of locomotive. From some awareness of the topic picked up from glancing through the article I am assuming that this paragraph intends to indicate the class of locomotive that Top Gear used for the Race - but it's not clear. SilkTork *^YES! 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of short / one sentence paragraphs, such as in the Filming and broadcast section. This disturbs the flow for the reader. Consider merging paragraphs, expanding with more detail, or removing if not important. SilkTork *^YES! 10:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gricer needs explaining per WP:Jargon. SilkTork *^YES! 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Focus. The first section gives too much background information on the history of train companies. One or two sentences making reference to train companies competing to provide the fastest London to Scotland service would be appropriate for a general encyclopedia article on a TV programme. The first section needs a refocus. Perhaps starting with the 4th paragraph ("The idea and much of the organisation of the race is credited to Graeme Bunker..."). SilkTork *^YES! 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The May 2009 Coronation railtour section would be better suited for the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado article. SilkTork *^YES! 10:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• NPOV. Article appears to be fair and balanced. It is a neutral account of the programme and doesn't engage in inappropriate praise or criticism. Good work! SilkTork *^YES! 11:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Referencing. I haven't checked sources yet, but this appears to be a well cited article. It mainly relies on two magazine articles, one in Steam Railway Magazine, Issue 363, and one in Heritage Railway Magazine, Issue 124, though it has a range of other sources as well. I like the idea of presenting the sources as primary and secondary - I don't recall seeing that previously. I am uncertain on the reliance on the primary source of the tv programme itself for some of the commentary for example "As seen on the programme, Hammond was delayed as he changed into his biker's leathers and was delayed again as he struggled to start the Black Shadow," and the Progress on the A1 road section. I am aware that film articles rely on this method quite a lot for their plot sections, and I don't think this use of the primary source will impact on the GA criteria, though if there are secondary sources which can be used instead, that would be good, as I think this is flying close to some of the do nots in WP:PRIMARY. SilkTork *^YES! 11:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Broad/balanced. The article mainly focuses on the train. I think there is a sense that the train was the major element in the show, as it was organised around the train; however, a general reader might reasonably expect more details on the car and the motorbike. I suggest that the Background section would be about setting up the programme - perhaps called Production or Development, and a section called Vehicles could give information on each of the vehicles used. SilkTork *^YES! 11:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• MoS. Other than the few examples noted above, the article meets the GA MoS requirements. SilkTork *^YES! 11:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting topic, and a fair amount of good research has been done to gather some decent information. The presentation of the material is mostly adequate and often very good, though attention could be given in places in order to assist the general reader. The Background section needs reshaping into one on the production/development of the show, and a new section on the vehicles created. While the main aspect of show itself was the train, the focus of this article needs to broaden to include the other two vehicles. The writing is at times very good - most of the Race section is quite gripping, and is among some of the best writing on the encyclopedia. However, there are sections which are less clear, and the writing in the Background sections needs tightening, and some of the short paragraphs (including some in the Race section) need attention to ensure flow. Referencing appears generally good, though to create more confidence for the reader secondary sources should be sought for those statements which at the moment rely on editors' observation of the primary source. SilkTork *^YES! 11:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold for seven days to allow editors to:

• Rewrite background section
• Add more information on the car and motorbike
• Tidy prose flow
• Seek more sources if possible
• Trim back some of the attention on the train

Any questions please give me a ping on my talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 11:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there should be references added on when speed restrictions were added around the country, the whole of the progress section, and the speed and limitations of the train. Should the programme itself be a ref? Simply south (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite notifying 3 projects and 4 significant contributors of what needed to be done, there has been no work on this article for the seven days of the hold, apart from a cite tag. Failing for points noted above - prose, cites and focus. When the work has been done, the article can be renominated. SilkTork *^YES! 09:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]