Talk:Pill railway station
Pill railway station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 28, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Pill railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I'll review this article as well. Wonder why these railway articles have been ignored for so long, they're kind of cosy to review. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since this article is so short anyway, I'm wondering whether some of the notes can be incorporated into the article body?
- Bristol and Portishead Pier and Railway Company is not linked at first occurrence in the article.
- "passed through the village" You haven't mentioned that Pill is a village (outside the intro) yet.
- There are several railways and companies in the history section that do not seem to be linked.
- There seems to be no explanation as to why there were less trains on the track over time, and why exactly it was closed?
- "the line will not be electrified," What does this mean? Could be noted.
- There are a bunch of duplicate links in the Future section.
- They are duplicates in the sense that they are already linked earlier in the article. A link should only occur once outside the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with this - to my mind, if something is not an obvious term, it should be linked in each section on the grounds that people frequently do not read the entire article. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm the manual of style seems to be pretty clear on this: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Duplicate links in an article can be identified by using a tool that can be found at User:Ucucha/duplinks."[1] FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- And that is something I find completely wrong-headed, because many times you skip to a particular section and there are no links because it's assumed you read the mass of article beforehand. I'm perfectly aware of tools to remove "excess" links, I just choose not to. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm the manual of style seems to be pretty clear on this: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Duplicate links in an article can be identified by using a tool that can be found at User:Ucucha/duplinks."[1] FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with this - to my mind, if something is not an obvious term, it should be linked in each section on the grounds that people frequently do not read the entire article. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- They are duplicates in the sense that they are already linked earlier in the article. A link should only occur once outside the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since the line is being opened again, was there a need for it in the meantime that was ever expressed?
- "Regular freight trains through the station began to run again in 2002" You don't state it is regular outside the intro.
- "3.9 miles (6.3 km) west of Bristol Temple Meads," Only stated in intro.
- Since the area will change in the near future, I think you should mention the date the infobox photo was taken.
- Ok, I think this is pretty close to passing (the link issue would probably be taken up at FAC, though), but could anything be added about the interim demand for the route? FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pill railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120002540/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Campaign-trains-Bristol-Temple-Meads-half-hour/story-14446079-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Campaign-trains-Bristol-Temple-Meads-half-hour/story-14446079-detail/story.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120708233227/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/100-million-Bristol-Metro-train-network-2016/story-16492523-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/100-million-Bristol-Metro-train-network-2016/story-16492523-detail/story.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151119172320/http://travelwest.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/consultation-leaflet-june-august-2015.pdf to http://travelwest.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/consultation-leaflet-june-august-2015.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)