Talk:Victoria line/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

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

Comments:

The lead is poorly structured and should not contain citations within it.
There are large areas, including whole sections, of the article that are uncited.
The Map section is unstandard and should instead be in the infobox.
The Stations section should not have a picture of every station.
The Gallery section is not to be in the article per WP:NOTREPOSITORY.

Due to these major issues, I will have to fail the article. It may be renominated once the issues are resolved. Dough4872 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not even get a chance to handle these issues. This is not Quick Fail Criteria, so I should have at least got a chance. This is a poor review, and I'm very disappointed. Pmlineditor^Talk 08:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has this article been written for five-year olds..? Never read such a patronising text in a long time..

For example... The line has hump-backed stations which allow trains to store gravitational potential energy as they arrive and to then use this energy as they leave the stations. The stations are on top of small hills, or humps. As the train travels up the hill to the station its weight helps it to slow down. As the train leaves the station it travels down the hill, with gravity helping the train to speed up. This saves 5% energy and makes the trains run 9% faster.[3] Each new platform built for the Victoria Line is 132.6 metres long.[4] 183 million people use the Victoria line each year.[5]

and this... The official opening ceremony for the line took place at Victoria station on March 7 1969. The Queen unveiled a commemorative plaque on the station concourse. After a short ceremony, she bought a 5d (old pence) ticket and travelled to Green Park. In new pence this would be about 2.08p.

No it wouldn't be about 2.08p - it was 2.08p! --IsarSteve (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you managed to review the "simple English" version which existed here for just under a day, see my comment on the main talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.