1550:
clear the availability of references. I'm aware that the community disagreed with many aspects of the review, but the bones of the argument can be made into a reasonable point. Nevertheless, you have put some effort in there. More importantly is the detail issue - I'm not entirely sure why there has been so much discussion of length of this article both here and on the GA noticeboard - the concerns in my review are about the level of detail in the article much of it appears to be what the criteria calls 'unnecessary detail '. I confess that I'm a little worried about this articles chances of passing GA at the moment - I had hoped for something of an iterative review, with quite a lot more in the way of changes and revisions and further comments - but we've had very little and the deadline we set has already been extended a week. :( Let's see what we can pull together shall we?
621:
587:
530:
506:
483:
461:
421:
391:
298:
220:
647:
1029:
1015:
362:
42:
718:
705:
692:
499:
as the paragraph that starts "In 1907 the weekday off-peak service was" - but I take my hat of you for such fine work - the article is amazingly detailed... I do think that quite a chunk of the 'Electric multiple units' section can be moved into the relevant article though... (I've changed this to a pass following the second opinion...)
1760:
article over this - but asked for a second opinion because there is a lot of weight to the article. David, if you are happy to provide your second opinion (the comments above devolved into a side-dissuasion on length) Can I get a definite yes or no to the question - is does this article go into unnecessary detail per the GA criteria?
1692:
to be as detailed. Whilst the developmental process for many articles ends with the achievement of GA status, that does not mean that it is not a step on the route to FA status and there is no reason that an article that is almost ready for FAC should not go through GAN first. I was the author of the
775:
Sorry for the delay, as the above says I have been away from the internet and hadn't been able to respond. I've made a very minor start, and agree that the electric multiple unit section can be reduced in length - I will work on this in user space and this could take a few days. I will comment again
1856:
Thanks for that. I'm seeing two open sections above: it looks like I've missed the "On its opening the Met operated the trains on the
District" sentence – sorry about. I think I'm going to have to rewrite this sentence; this may affect the whole paragraph. The second section I'm confused about as I
1612:
Apart from the section on multiple units, the other thing you mentioned when originally assessing 3b was the three paras on service frequencies. I guess we could move these into a "Services" section, but I don't see enough for a sub-article. Another way allowing readers access to a 'moderate amount
1549:
Afternoon everybody, great to see progress is being made. Couple of clarifications... I wasn't actually interested in snippet view (although for books that have that, it's worth using the tool I suggested) merely that to show willing to the previous reviewer concerns, some effort was made to make
1316:
I have concerns about linking to google books in such a way: perhaps it detracts from the primary linking mechanism that is the isbn wiki-magic which takes you directly to looking for the book on on-line sources, in libraries or from book-sellers. Linking directly in this way can be perhaps seen by
498:
Detail is a bit of an issue - I'd be inclined to drop the paragraph that starts "In
December 1876 there were six trains per hour on the inner circle between Mansion House" for a start and also everything from "After opening the District service from New Cross " to the end of the paragraph, as well
235:
I find the article a touch heavy-going to read, (although I suspect that's largely because it's not a normal subject of mine to read) the text has a tendency to feel like it's written for people who already know a lot of the related history - I think it's probably fine for GA (on the level of clear
1084:
has been away, to extend the deadline for another week - we'll do a pass/fail next Sunday. I confess to struggling to follow much of the conversation above - (I personally find it easier when all of the conversation is in the relevent bit of the table but we've started down here so that's fine) -
742:
Finished today - I'm considering the article 'on hold', for let's say, seven days - although I'd very much like this to be a dialog (apart from anything, changes may reveal other things that could do with being changed) - you are entirely welcome to reply to concerns inline, and I look forward to
1759:
that he intended his comments above to be just that second opinion. Clearly this article's review process is a mess of communication erros from start to finnish - let us try and be as clear as possible. My opinion is that the article is unnecessarily detailed to the extent that I would fail the
1102:
I'm suggesting that GAN is not meant to be the "road to FA". No! Most articles do not go on to FAC and that's as it should be. Many readers find FAs too long and detailed. Their page views tend to be low. Most people don't want to know all there is to know about a subject. They don't want to wade
169:
and I volunteered to re-review as being the simplest way to keep the article moving forward. Having said that I'd like to make sure that there is no implication that the article is getting an easy ride - for this reason I'm going to stay off article edits myself (so all suggestions will go in the
333:
I'm not a bit fan of footnotes in general, but I can't find anything in MOS about them so that's okay, Likewise I find the layout a touch difficult to follow given that there are only two sections and a bunch of other sections... can we talk about ways of maybe promoting some of the section? I
1827:
I think I'll take this article to peer review. The main reason for this is that in a month's time I'm travelling for about 3 weeks. I will have access to the internet, but no access to my books, and this could frustrate those at FAC. A good through peer review should mean that most issues are
1341:
My guide when writing this article has been the MOS, as exemplified by FAs. The length criteria for GAs and FAs substantially the same; above I was attempting to explain to MathewTownsend how logically this needs to be so that article <GA <FA, but looking subsequently at the criteria
848:, a featured article. Regarding the sections you suggested removing, surely historical outline service frequencies are an important part of an article on a railway? I do agree (after a break and coming back to the article) that the multiple unit section should be reduced in size. (I wrote
1669:
I suspect that what we have here is simply a difference of opinion on how the 'unnecessary detail' clause of the GA criteria should be interpreted. With this in mind I've changed the article status to ask for a second opinion. I'll post on the GA talk page now to see if there is anyone
273:"Several vehicles have been preserved. " I'd drop this, it is implicit in the following sentence. (I'm not going to do much more prose on 'Electric multiple units' because of the movement suggestion below, but if there's a clear reason to leave it in then I'll come back with more :)
1720:
Hi David, sorry - really confused and I might need a bit of clarification here - I think I just need the basic overview - why are people talking about article length? (and for that matter FAs?) I'm presuming I must have missed something early on on the conversation.
685:'On its opening' - there needs to be some way of stating that initially (from 1868) the Metropolitan operated the District services, with the District not taking over until later on (1871); rather than implying that the District operated its own trains throughout.
790:
Just to bring the reviewer up to date I found the previous Good
Article review just before I left to go away. I intended to re-nom the article after I returned. Thanks to everyone for re-noming this, and thanks for the comments. Concerning your comments above:
1317:
some people as an endorsement of google.com; this could be unpopular with some readers. However, I have linked to complete texts in the past, and added the links to the bibliography in a revised format that lets the reader know what is being offered.
1174:
GAN was meant to be simple so that articles could be evaluated quickly as "good" to exercise some quality control over wikipedia articles. It was meant to be a quick evaluation, addressing only a few major points, so a huge backlog can be avoided.
1861:
that covers this history and I'll add that in external links; I thought it was already there! The timing of comments on these GA's is unfortunate, as I'm away for 48 hours, but hopefully by then I should have a rewrite of the offending sentence.
1604:
section again, I note we have at bullet 2 "moderate amount of information on the topic's more important points" and just below it we also have "some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic". I also have one eye on
1857:
thought I had dealt with it has far as possible. The reliable sources are published books, but for a history that stops nearly 70 years ago that's not surprising. There is a (self-published) website, Clive's
UndergrounD Line Guides:(
1573:
again and article length is mentioned in the first line in the "nutshell" box at the top. This anticipates an editing process whereby as the article length gets bigger, sections are spun off into sub-articles. Further down the page,
383:
books a bit more linked to the outside world. This is slightly outside the GA criteria but I think you'll understand my motivation for asking in this case - EDIT - This isn't a GA criteria so I'm not going to insist before passing.
1578:
section discusses arranging articles in a series of inverted pyramids, with a general article with sub-sections linking to sub-articles. Perhaps page length can become too important in this process as its far easier to assess than
1811:
Separately - Edgepedia - is it your intention to submit this article to FAC directly after passing GA? (It's on my mind that the FAC process will quite definitely knock any edges of the article that are not cleared up by this
1779:
is an example of one of my own articles of a similar size to this one which was passed with a similar amount of detail. It then proceeded through the FAC process with minimal change to the content and no expansion of the
830:
921:
I really don't understand this comment MathewTownsend. Are you suggesting the route to FAC is to write a short article, get it reviewed as a Good
Article, and then rewrite as Featured Article? Surely (from
1058:
and good articles have to comply with a few elements of that. If you think that a good article should comply with a requirement not in the MOS, so that any featured article that complies with the MOS and
240:"On its opening the Met operated the trains on the District, receiving 55 % of the gross receipts for a fixed level of service." - Can re remove 'On its opening' - it makes the sentence a bit ambiguous...
743:
seeing how you get on. Also, as a gesture of good faith I'm considering inviting the previous reviewer to go though the prose separately, but I'd like to take a bit of time to think about that.
667:
So I've gone though and given my first comments - I'll take another pass tomorrow - although people are welcome to start responding, the article isn't on hold yet as the review is still ongoing.
267:
You've got a bit of a problem with "LT&SR" - it's used a lot but because of the size of the article it's difficult to find what it means... I haven't got any ideas though... any suggestions?
1879:; the read through also lead to some other changes, including spliting the first history sub-section into two that I prefer. Can you please clarify any other comments that I haven't addressed?
1156:
Good articles are meant to touch on the major issues of a subject (broad overview), but to be concise and not go into excessive detail. That way the reader actually reads the whole article.
1594:
is information in an article that should be (or is) in another article. I've fixed one instance of that in the electric multiple unit section. Looking at the article again, I found another
411:, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
408:
825:
3a/b: The article size is 66,893 bytes; the readable text (measured manually using a text editor) is 45,984 characters and 7534 words. This slightly bigger than the 50,390 byte size
1684:
I believe the issue of article size is irrelevant to the assessment of the article for GA consideration. The issue of detail is relevant, but it is not the case that good articles
834:
1583:
849:
166:
1609:
1b (that the article is "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"; I'm unsure if I will take this article further at the moment.
1140:
1160:
270:
Looking though, there are bunch of single-sentence paragraphs, which are generally discouraged - could you go though and maybe attach to a related paragraph, or even expand?
229:
1167:
who worked hard to create a simple GA evaluation process, basically to prevent long, drawn out reviews like this one. GAN is not meant to prepare an article for FAC. Go to
323:
80:
47:
1740:'s comment at 18:00 on 18 August "too long and too many unnecessary 'facts'". Length is not relevant and a consideration of what is too much detail is subjective. --
1587:
1481:
1385:
1359:
70:
334:
certainly think it would be handy if each of the history subsections had approximate years on them... (i.e. 'South to
Richmond and east to East Ham, 1886-1904')
1697:
went through GAN immediately before going through FAC. In most cases, as soon as they passed GAN they were nominated for FAC. At 7,844 words, the good article
1135:
604:
262:"To promote travel by the underground railways in London a joint marketing arrangement was agreed in 1908 that" - bit passive, can we have "X agreed to..."?
1694:
1433:
1125:
327:
319:
1335:
1194:
1080:
Good morning fellow editors. Nice to see you both, Today was due to be the deadline for pass/failing the article - but I think it's fair, given that
126:
311:
1638:
905:
p.s. This is a GAN, not a FAC. So it shouldn't be compared to FAs in size or focus. Or what's going on? Too long and too many unnecessary "facts".
236:
and concise) but it's something to look at for future development (as a point in this 'clerestory' certainly needs a wikilink or a different word)
1701:
is 20% longer than the 6,489 words in the current version of this article and that article deals with a railway line less than four miles long.--
122:
165:
Good afternoon all. I'm going to be reviewing this article for GA - for completeness it is noted that the last nomination was the subject of
52:
1298:
1271:
1130:
634:
107:
1358:; this article is currently about 43k of readable prose, or about 7000 words. Also this article is one of a group on the companies of the
1218:
799:
761:
Thank you for your comments; I've been away and have just returned today. I plan to have a response for you in the next couple of days.
315:
1613:
of information' and satisfy the reader who need a lot of details would be to push these into footnotes. Would footnotes work for you?
1106:
995:
516:
75:
1401:
99:
1120:
430:
287:
I'm done with prose for the most part now - although I suspect more might pop out after some of the below issues are resolved :)
1246:
I looked at the google snippet view you suggested and only two of the books are available, and these have very restricted views.
156:
596:
1334:
Perhaps further discussion on the detail/length of the article following comments made by MathewTownsend and the discussion at
1842:
Okay - now we've had the second opinion - when do you think you'll have a chance to have addressed the remaining comments by?
1620:
923:
1693:
six London
Underground featured articles that Edgepedia listed above as comparative examples for this article and all but
1449:
1063:
could fail as a good article, perhaps we need to start a discussion elsewhere. In my view that would be a flawed process.
170:
prose box) and the review be particularly interested in the sources. The review should go up in the next few hours :)
608:
400:
1055:
404:
307:
278:"Initially lighting was by coal gas held in bags on the roof, and this changed to a pressurised oil gas system." -: -->
1570:
1517:
This now revised. When I split the sub-article off some time ago, I failed to condense this section sufficiently.
1145:
1023:
882:
600:
492:
345:
1655:
I'm going to away now until tomorrow, but I will be able to work on this article then, given a little direction.
972:
822:
2a:I'm concerned about linking to Google books; however I am still considering my detailed reply on this comment.
543:
470:
1183:
1045:
910:
892:
1351:
377:
Slightly unusually here, I'm going to ask that the books references are given a bit of a going over. I used
794:
1a:I've not been able to find a definition for 'clerestory' in a reliable source and linking to the article
1776:
1755:
Hello everybody - apologies for the delay, I've been waiting for a second opinion reviewer to turn up and
1417:
845:
115:
17:
1197:; perhaps you would like to ensure I have represented your point of view accurately and comment there?
945:
1847:
1817:
1799:
1765:
1756:
1726:
1675:
1555:
1090:
826:
798:
doesn't help and is likely to confuse as it doesn't mention this usage of the word, so I've asked at
748:
672:
439:
No obvious problems, but I'd like to leave this as unresolved for a while in case something pops up.
175:
150:
1884:
1867:
1833:
1785:
1775:
OK. To be absolutely clear, I do not think that this article is too detailed to be passed as a GA.
1745:
1737:
1706:
1660:
1646:
1628:
1540:
1522:
1502:
1322:
1251:
1230:
1202:
1179:
1068:
1041:
980:
953:
935:
906:
888:
857:
781:
766:
733:
1601:
1575:
571:
567:
630:
575:
1606:
1347:
1343:
1295:
1268:
1164:
1060:
948:
with a readable prose of 45k this article is below the recommended size to consider division.
370:. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
371:
193:
1465:
1040:
This article is not being measured against the FAC criteria. Those criteria are different.
92:
1115:
1843:
1813:
1795:
1761:
1722:
1671:
1551:
1362:. All the other articles in this group are featured; for comparison the lengths are below:
1356:
about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words
1086:
744:
668:
380:
171:
146:
520:: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
928:
Featured articles are considered to be the best articles
Knowledge (XXG) has to offer...
816:
template; does this help? I've believe I've dealt the other issues raised, please check.
1880:
1863:
1829:
1781:
1741:
1702:
1698:
1656:
1642:
1624:
1536:
1518:
1498:
1318:
1247:
1226:
1198:
1081:
1064:
976:
949:
931:
853:
837:
777:
762:
726:
810:
1212:
Thank you
Fayedizard. My understand that we have the following points outstanding:
1289:
1262:
1858:
1168:
1888:
1871:
1851:
1837:
1821:
1803:
1789:
1769:
1749:
1730:
1710:
1679:
1664:
1650:
1632:
1559:
1544:
1526:
1506:
1326:
1255:
1234:
1206:
1187:
1094:
1072:
1049:
984:
957:
939:
914:
896:
861:
785:
770:
752:
737:
676:
179:
160:
819:
1b:I've re-arranged the history section using sub-sections and dated sections.
795:
279:"Lighting was initial provide by coal gas, and later by pressurised oil gas."
1794:
Thank you for your second opinion - I've marked that part off as complete.
1336:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Good article nominations#Good article detail or length
1195:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Good article nominations#Good article detail or length
491:. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
1193:
Thank you for your comments MathewTownsend. I've started a discussion at
542:: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
1085:
are there any particular things that need clarifying about the review?
842:
There are quite a few things that I can see that are silent or missing.
1623:
for similar articles) that you could suggest as a model for this one?
1225:
A definition has been added in the electric multiple units section.
930:, hence comparison with the length and detail of featured articles.
1022:
b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see
852:
and I'm confident that everything in this article is in that one.)
285:
I'll do another pass though tomorrow and see what else I can find.
881:"it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see
1688:
be less detailed than featured articles rather that they do not
1616:
Is there is anything else that you consider unnecessary detail?
245:" burden of its very high construction costs" - I'd drop 'very'
1641:
article. Perhaps you could point out the differences for me?
1178:
If a GA becomes a FA, it's good article status is removed.
973:
Talk:Metropolitan_Railway#Bullocks_horns_.2F_tower_of_london
549:
A apparently well organised and committed group of editors.
1565:
Thanks for the comments. Looking at your comment about
476:
To the point of getting a touch out of hand (see below)
1877:
1595:
1141:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
437:
Can't find any yet - but I'll do another pass tomorrow.
134:
103:
1876:
I've rewriten the last unstruck line in the 1a section
1736:
The discussion about the article's length grew out of
1217:
A definition for clerestory - there is a discussion at
1161:
Knowledge (XXG):What the Good article criteria are not
1584:
Metropolitan
District Railway electric multiple units
850:
Metropolitan District Railway electric multiple units
414:
All appears fine, but I'll do another pass tomorrow.
250:"On Saturday 1 July 1871 an opening banquet " -: -->
1221:; also I plan to visit a library in the next week.
1219:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Trains#Clerestory
975:, the image at Completing the circle has changed.
1582:This article is organised like that, for example
1103:through every little detail. Hence we have GAs.
701:"On Saturday 1 July 1871, an opening banquet " -
230:understandable to an appropriately broad audience
1136:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (words to watch)
1588:Metropolitan District Railway steam locomotives
1482:Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway
1386:Underground Electric Railways Company of London
1360:Underground Electric Railways Company of London
1012:a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
971:Reviewer please note following a discussion at
1126:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (lead section)
251:"On Saturday 1 July 1871, an opening banquet "
806:I've expanded this in a few places using the
8:
800:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Clerestory
1695:Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway
1621:Knowledge (XXG):Featured articles#Transport
1434:Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway
1242:A discussion on the reliable sources cited.
256:"The following Monday, 3 July 1871," -: -->
1367:
30:
1569:, to interpret this I've read the linked
1639:Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway
1513:A revised electric multiple unit section
1131:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (layout)
186:
61:
33:
1107:Knowledge (XXG):Good article criteria
996:Knowledge (XXG):Good article criteria
7:
1288:Alan Arthur Jackson (October 1986).
1121:Knowledge (XXG):Copyright violations
1109:must follow a MOS "lite". That is:
232:; spelling and grammar are correct.
228:. the prose is clear, concise, and
1028:
1014:
879:does this follow GA criteria 3(b)
640:Captions and Alt text - all good.
361:
24:
1402:Baker Street and Waterloo Railway
1350:), there is one word difference.
1054:My understanding is there is one
924:Knowledge (XXG):Featured articles
1027:
1013:
716:
703:
690:
645:
619:
585:
528:
504:
481:
459:
419:
389:
360:
296:
218:
844:This only a little bigger than
646:
1889:06:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
1872:05:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1590:are sub-articles. One form of
833:) was in March 2012 when in a
409:could reasonably be challenged
1:
1852:19:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1838:19:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1822:09:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1804:19:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1790:17:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1770:09:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1450:City and South London Railway
1291:London's metropolitan railway
1146:Knowledge (XXG):Embedded list
605:valid non-free use rationales
523:Not a controversial subject.
1261:Antony Badsey-Ellis (2005).
1159:It might be helpful to read
620:
586:
529:
505:
482:
460:
420:
390:
381:Stephen_Hawking#Bibliography
297:
219:
1750:21:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
1731:06:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
1711:00:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
1680:17:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
1665:08:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
1651:08:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
1633:07:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
1560:13:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
1545:11:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
1527:11:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
1507:11:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
1327:11:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
1256:11:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
1235:11:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
1207:06:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
1188:21:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
1116:Knowledge (XXG):MOS#Clarity
1099:Good evening, Fayedizard.
1095:09:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
1073:06:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
1050:19:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
985:18:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
958:18:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
940:18:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
915:18:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
897:17:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
862:17:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
786:19:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
771:11:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
753:16:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
738:20:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
677:17:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
180:16:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
161:16:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
1911:
1757:David has just informed me
1264:London's lost tube schemes
552:
442:
372:the layout style guideline
337:
201:
188:
192:
1535:Is there anything else?
1153:As for MOS, that's it!
946:Knowledge (XXG):SIZERULE
257:"The following Monday,",
189:
1294:. David & Charles.
998:, namely 3(a) and 3(b):
633:to the topic, and have
306:. it complies with the
1777:Central London Railway
1418:Central London Railway
846:Central London Railway
1828:resolved before FAC.
1600:Looking again at the
1354:gives a guideline of
1267:. Capital Transport.
1007:broad in its coverage
994:I'm referring to the
450:Broad in its coverage
18:Talk:District Railway
1619:Is there an FA (see
827:Metropolitan Railway
546:or content dispute.
431:no original research
351:no original research
1637:I've just read the
840:commented that the
469:. it addresses the
407:. All content that
1592:unnecessary detail
1567:unnecessary detail
1056:WP:Manual of Style
992:Reply to Edgepedia
657:Overall assessment
601:copyright statuses
562:, if possible, by
328:list incorporation
1496:
1495:
1300:978-0-7153-8839-6
1273:978-1-85414-293-1
1165:User:Geometry guy
714:"3 July 1871," -
665:
664:
635:suitable captions
607:are provided for
167:some conversation
89:
88:
1902:
1571:WP:Summary style
1466:District Railway
1368:
1311:
1309:
1307:
1284:
1282:
1280:
1031:
1030:
1017:
1016:
871:drive by comment
815:
809:
729:
724:
720:
719:
711:
707:
706:
698:
694:
693:
649:
648:
623:
622:
609:non-free content
589:
588:
532:
531:
508:
507:
485:
484:
463:
462:
423:
422:
401:reliable sources
393:
392:
364:
363:
300:
299:
222:
221:
187:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
1910:
1909:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1305:
1303:
1301:
1287:
1278:
1276:
1274:
1260:
813:
807:
727:
717:
715:
704:
702:
691:
689:
310:guidelines for
308:Manual of Style
198:Review Comment
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1908:
1906:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1753:
1752:
1738:MathewTownsend
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1699:Chesham branch
1653:
1635:
1617:
1614:
1610:
1598:
1580:
1534:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1494:
1493:
1490:
1487:
1484:
1478:
1477:
1474:
1471:
1468:
1462:
1461:
1458:
1455:
1452:
1446:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1436:
1430:
1429:
1426:
1423:
1420:
1414:
1413:
1410:
1407:
1404:
1398:
1397:
1394:
1391:
1388:
1382:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1372:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1352:WP:ARTICLESIZE
1331:
1330:
1329:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1299:
1285:
1272:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1210:
1209:
1180:MathewTownsend
1163:, approved by
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1042:MathewTownsend
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1020:
1018:
1000:
999:
988:
987:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
942:
918:
917:
907:MathewTownsend
900:
899:
889:MathewTownsend
883:summary style)
874:
873:
867:
866:
865:
864:
838:User:DavidCane
829:(currently at
823:
820:
817:
788:
773:
758:
757:
756:
755:
712:
699:
686:
663:
662:
660:
650:
642:
641:
638:
624:
616:
615:
612:
590:
582:
581:
579:
554:
551:
550:
547:
533:
525:
524:
521:
509:
501:
500:
496:
486:
478:
477:
474:
473:of the topic.
464:
456:
455:
453:
444:
441:
440:
434:
429:. it contains
424:
416:
415:
412:
394:
386:
385:
375:
365:
357:
356:
354:
339:
336:
335:
331:
320:words to watch
301:
293:
292:
290:
282:
281:
274:
271:
268:
264:
259:
253:
247:
242:
233:
223:
215:
214:
212:
203:
200:
199:
196:
191:
184:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1907:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1860:
1859:District Line
1855:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1778:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1758:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1615:
1611:
1608:
1603:
1599:
1596:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1547:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1491:
1488:
1485:
1483:
1480:
1479:
1475:
1472:
1469:
1467:
1464:
1463:
1459:
1456:
1453:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1440:
1437:
1435:
1432:
1431:
1427:
1424:
1421:
1419:
1416:
1415:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1403:
1400:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1389:
1387:
1384:
1383:
1379:
1376:
1373:
1370:
1369:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1302:
1297:
1293:
1292:
1286:
1275:
1270:
1266:
1265:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1220:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1172:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1157:
1154:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1132:
1129:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1097:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1083:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1025:
1024:summary style
1021:
1019:
1011:
1010:
1008:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
997:
993:
990:
989:
986:
982:
978:
974:
970:
967:
966:
959:
955:
951:
947:
944:Referring to
943:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
920:
919:
916:
912:
908:
904:
903:
902:
901:
898:
894:
890:
886:
884:
878:
877:
876:
875:
872:
869:
868:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
836:
832:
828:
824:
821:
818:
812:
805:
801:
797:
793:
792:
789:
787:
783:
779:
774:
772:
768:
764:
760:
759:
754:
750:
746:
741:
740:
739:
735:
731:
723:
713:
710:
700:
697:
687:
684:
681:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
661:
658:
654:
651:
644:
643:
639:
636:
632:
628:
625:
618:
617:
614:No problems.
613:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
591:
584:
583:
580:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
558:
555:
553:
548:
545:
541:
537:
534:
527:
526:
522:
519:
518:
513:
510:
503:
502:
497:
494:
493:summary style
490:
487:
480:
479:
475:
472:
468:
465:
458:
457:
454:
451:
448:
445:
443:
438:
435:
432:
428:
425:
418:
417:
413:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:
388:
387:
382:
379:] to get the
378:
376:
373:
369:
366:
359:
358:
355:
352:
348:
347:
343:
340:
338:
332:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:lead sections
309:
305:
302:
295:
294:
291:
288:
286:
280:
276:
275:
272:
269:
266:
263:
260:
258:
254:
252:
248:
246:
243:
241:
238:
237:
234:
231:
227:
224:
217:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
202:
197:
195:
185:
182:
181:
177:
173:
168:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
1810:
1754:
1719:
1689:
1685:
1591:
1566:
1548:
1533:
1512:
1497:
1374:Size (bytes)
1355:
1333:
1304:. Retrieved
1290:
1277:. Retrieved
1263:
1241:
1216:
1211:
1177:
1173:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1079:
1006:
991:
968:
927:
880:
870:
841:
803:
802:. Regarding
721:
708:
695:
682:
666:
656:
652:
629:. media are
626:
595:. media are
592:
563:
559:
556:
539:
535:
515:
511:
488:
471:main aspects
466:
449:
446:
436:
426:
405:cited inline
396:
367:
350:
344:
341:
303:
289:
284:
283:
277:
265:
261:
255:
249:
244:
239:
225:
209:Well-written
208:
205:
183:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
1380:characters
1171:for that.
1169:peer review
835:Peer Review
599:with their
560:Illustrated
104:visual edit
1844:Fayedizard
1814:Fayedizard
1796:Fayedizard
1762:Fayedizard
1723:Fayedizard
1672:Fayedizard
1552:Fayedizard
1087:Fayedizard
796:Clerestory
776:tomorrow.
745:Fayedizard
669:Fayedizard
346:Verifiable
172:Fayedizard
147:Fayedizard
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
1881:Edgepedia
1864:Edgepedia
1830:Edgepedia
1782:DavidCane
1780:detail.--
1742:DavidCane
1703:DavidCane
1657:Edgepedia
1643:Edgepedia
1625:Edgepedia
1602:WP:DETAIL
1579:'detail'.
1576:WP:DETAIL
1537:Edgepedia
1519:Edgepedia
1499:Edgepedia
1319:Edgepedia
1306:20 August
1279:20 August
1248:Edgepedia
1227:Edgepedia
1199:Edgepedia
1082:Edgepedia
1065:Edgepedia
1005:3. Is it
977:Edgepedia
950:Edgepedia
932:Edgepedia
854:Edgepedia
804:LT&SR
778:Edgepedia
763:Edgepedia
688:'very' -
194:Attribute
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
631:relevant
566:such as
544:edit war
157:contribs
76:Criteria
1812:review)
1670:around.
1371:Article
969:Comment
517:Neutral
324:fiction
127:history
108:history
94:Article
1607:WP:FA?
1492:30903
1476:43077
1460:27003
1444:29454
1428:40879
1412:48671
1396:21883
1348:WP:GA?
1344:WP:FA?
1061:WP:FA?
730:rose64
603:, and
597:tagged
568:images
540:Stable
326:, and
316:layout
1486:49196
1470:63222
1454:44724
1438:50639
1422:62963
1406:77124
1390:34091
1377:words
576:audio
574:, or
572:video
564:media
349:with
190:Rate
136:Watch
16:<
1885:talk
1868:talk
1848:talk
1834:talk
1818:talk
1800:talk
1786:talk
1766:talk
1746:talk
1727:talk
1707:talk
1690:need
1686:must
1676:talk
1661:talk
1647:talk
1629:talk
1586:and
1556:talk
1541:talk
1523:talk
1503:talk
1489:4950
1473:7027
1457:4389
1441:4761
1425:6670
1409:7888
1393:3473
1323:talk
1308:2012
1296:ISBN
1281:2012
1269:ISBN
1252:talk
1231:talk
1203:talk
1184:talk
1091:talk
1069:talk
1046:talk
981:talk
954:talk
936:talk
911:talk
893:talk
858:talk
811:abbr
782:talk
767:talk
749:talk
734:talk
722:Done
709:Done
696:Done
673:talk
403:are
176:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
1026:):
887:?
831:FAC
728:Red
495:).
1887:)
1870:)
1850:)
1836:)
1820:)
1802:)
1788:)
1768:)
1748:)
1729:)
1709:)
1678:)
1663:)
1649:)
1631:)
1558:)
1543:)
1525:)
1505:)
1346:,
1325:)
1254:)
1233:)
1205:)
1186:)
1093:)
1071:)
1048:)
1009:?
983:)
956:)
938:)
926:)
913:)
895:)
860:)
814:}}
808:{{
784:)
769:)
751:)
736:)
725:--
683:1a
675:)
659:.
655:.
637:.
627:6b
611:.
593:6a
578::
570:,
557:6.
538:.
514:.
489:3b
467:3a
452::
447:3.
433:.
427:2c
399:.
397:2b
374:.
368:2a
353::
342:2.
330:.
322:,
318:,
314:,
304:1b
226:1a
211::
206:1.
178:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
1883:(
1866:(
1846:(
1832:(
1816:(
1798:(
1784:(
1764:(
1744:(
1725:(
1705:(
1674:(
1659:(
1645:(
1627:(
1597:.
1554:(
1539:(
1521:(
1501:(
1342:(
1321:(
1310:.
1283:.
1250:(
1229:(
1201:(
1182:(
1089:(
1067:(
1044:(
979:(
952:(
934:(
909:(
891:(
885:"
856:(
780:(
765:(
747:(
732:(
671:(
653:7
536:5
512:4
174:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.