Talk:Ffestiniog Railway/GA1
GA Reassessment edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
- The most significant problem with this article is that it is almost entirely without inline citations to support what is being claimed. Some other issues include:
- "The line travels through spectacular mountainous scenery and is single track with passing places." "Spectacular" is peacock language.
- Why is the paragraph beginning "Hafod y Llyn was replaced by Tan y Bwlch around 1872 ..." preceeded by two bullets?
- The Police force paragraph is too short to stand alone.
- The Quarries served by the railway section is empty. It needs to be fleshed out with the major points from the main article.
- The external link labelled Note at the end of the Train control and regulation section needs to be dealt with.
- The Bibliography section appears to be a list of books not used in the preparation of this article, and so ought to be called Further reading.
- "Why are the publications in the Bibliography section numbered, and why does the numbering run from 1–7 before returning to 1?
- Citation #6 ([1]) is broken.
--Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- The significant issue of lack of citations remains outstanding, and so this this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ffestiniog Railway GA Reassessment edit
- The most significant problem with this article is that it is almost entirely without inline citations to support what is being claimed. Some other issues include:
- There are a number of inline citations - the level of useage is obviously debatable. I would contend that 20+ inline citations is hardly "almost entirely without inline"
- Therefore, end of discussion. I can see no point in arguing. However, see other responses
... edit
- "The line travels through spectacular mountainous scenery and is single track with passing places." "Spectacular" is peacock language.
- This is obviously a subjective description by the original writer, and as such may have been culled from another write-up of the company/region. Usage of such is minimal, and does not detract from the main information.
- I did not say it was such - I said "may be"
... edit
- Why is the paragraph beginning "Hafod y Llyn was replaced by Tan y Bwlch around 1872 ..." preceeded by two bullets?
- Editorial error - should not appear like that - corrected
... edit
- The Police force paragraph is too short to stand alone.
- Existance of, was verified from citation #6 at time of insertion. Little is known of the service. Recorded here, as a little known fact. Technically the position still exists, though powers have not been used for some time.
... edit
- The Quarries served by the railway section is empty. It needs to be fleshed out with the major points from the main article.
- It was decided, by consensus, that as the main file grew that tables of this sort were best served in a seperate file. There are others.
- Why - there is nothing for Rolling stock, but a similar pointer
... edit
- The external link labelled Note at the end of the Train control and regulation section needs to be dealt with.
- "Note" link was left in, after some edit by others placing speculated material, which was removed. "Note" is now removed
... edit
- The Bibliography section appears to be a list of books not used in the preparation of this article, and so ought to be called Further reading.
- The Bibliography section was extant, and named such when the "good article" marker was first placed - They are a list of books which cover the subject, or parts thereof. Is this a personal comment, or a change in "system"
- The good article criteria have changed significantly since this article was listed in 2005, most obviously in the need for reliable sources and citations. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
... edit
- "Why are the publications in the Bibliography section numbered, and why does the numbering run from 1–7 before returning to 1?
- The numbering is a product of the template, and insertion of templates within it. I have moved offenders to start, but there are still 3 No. 1's It could be removed by putting manual data in.
- Please look at the coding - whoever entered the list, did so as it stands - the # sign is producing a number - is it relevant if its numbered or not??
... edit
- Citation #6 ([2]) is broken.
- The site it refers to has been redeveloped since the data was retrieved - a problem encountered all over the web. At this point, unable to establish new location, if any.
- Then that makes the already too short Police force section another which is completely uncited. Can you not find the article in an archive? --Malleus
- Interesting - forgot that one - done
Fatuorum 20:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
--Keith 20:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Final response from one contributor (of many) edit
Delist, if you consider such action appropriate.
As far as I am aware, the information contained is correct. Wether its presentation is of a standard that a particular reviewing editor expects, is entirely subjective to that editor.
I will correct errors of my own, or those I find of others, but this I do so, voluntary. --Keith 21:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is not about the standards of one reviewing editor, it is about meeting the GA criteria, which this article does not do at present. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information presented in this article, but that is not sufficient, it must be sourced. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)