Talk:Great Western Railway/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken an initial look at it and its pretty good, I'll go through the manual of style issues in more detail later.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Apart from the lead, which could do with some minor improvements its pretty good.The lead seems OK now, maybe I was wrong.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
I think some more sources would be good, especially in the 'gauge war' and 'named expresses' sections - these are marked with 'citation needed'.a couple more would be nice in the 'named expresses' section .Now fine.
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, 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):
- Some of the sources are missing page references so those should be added too if possible, I can give some examples if necessary.
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Some more content on theNow fine.ships andbranch lines is probably worthwhile.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
A couple of images are missing their authorships.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
The image: File:Sonning2.jpg is public domain as its copyright has expired rather than for the current reason. 
Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The images: File:GWR_4038_on_Cornish_Riviera_Express.jpg and File:GWR_bus_AF84_on_Helston_service.jpg need their authorship correcting. Done Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The image: File:Railway bridge Maidenhead.jpeg could do with a better tag for its status, but its a minor issue. I'm wrong, this looks OK actually. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I need a chance to go through the manual of style criteria in more detail and it needs a few more sources so I'm putting it on hold for now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Now passed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
No branches again[edit]
For me that GW branch lines are ignored is a fatal reason against this being a Good Article. That some lines were not 100% GW is not a valid reason for their omission.--SilasW (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good catch, yeah some content on these should be included in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- The article is already very long - much of the effort of getting it to this stage has been about creating subsidiary articles that explore the various aspects in more detail. How much can be added about branch lines to get the right balance between being too superficial or without overloading it? The Wiki definition of a branch line is a secondary railway line which branches off a more important through route, usually a main line. A rough check on the map suggests that there are in excess of 100 such lines operated by the GWR; even if the count is restricted to terminal lines it is in the region of 50. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I copied the text into a text editor (excluding the reference) and the readable prose length of the article is approximately 50k characters, which is fairly long but it doesn't need to be divided just yet (per WP:SIZERULE) another paragraph on the branch lines seems worthwhile to be honest, and I think its needed to get the broad coverage for GA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've replaced the original sentence about branches with a whole paragraph. Does that help? If anyone has more notable examples than the ones given, please replace them. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I copied the text into a text editor (excluding the reference) and the readable prose length of the article is approximately 50k characters, which is fairly long but it doesn't need to be divided just yet (per WP:SIZERULE) another paragraph on the branch lines seems worthwhile to be honest, and I think its needed to get the broad coverage for GA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- The article is already very long - much of the effort of getting it to this stage has been about creating subsidiary articles that explore the various aspects in more detail. How much can be added about branch lines to get the right balance between being too superficial or without overloading it? The Wiki definition of a branch line is a secondary railway line which branches off a more important through route, usually a main line. A rough check on the map suggests that there are in excess of 100 such lines operated by the GWR; even if the count is restricted to terminal lines it is in the region of 50. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll check tomorrow, and I'll also take another look at the sourcing, it seems you've been busy :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- This looks fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Engineering[edit]
Comment - not that I would necessarily fail this for GA, but from the little I have read about this railway line, it was considered a major engineering achievement at the time, but there is no sense of this in the article. I might have some more to say about this later when I've had time to check back on my references. Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to respond to this. The article is about the Great Western Railway (company) as a whole rather than just the Great Western Main Line between Paddington and Bristol. For the latter there were undoubtedly major engineering feats and these are briefly covered in the 'Engineering Features' section -- each feature being sufficiently important to command its own article. The GWR is a vast subject and it would be a fairly safe bet that there are more books published about it than any other UK railway company. The problem is keeping the detail down to a manageable size. As this is a top-level article, how much more detail could be added to describe the 'major engineering achievement' as you understand it? -- EdJogg (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not going to fail this for this (which is why I said 'agreed'), but this is a good point too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to respond to this. The article is about the Great Western Railway (company) as a whole rather than just the Great Western Main Line between Paddington and Bristol. For the latter there were undoubtedly major engineering feats and these are briefly covered in the 'Engineering Features' section -- each feature being sufficiently important to command its own article. The GWR is a vast subject and it would be a fairly safe bet that there are more books published about it than any other UK railway company. The problem is keeping the detail down to a manageable size. As this is a top-level article, how much more detail could be added to describe the 'major engineering achievement' as you understand it? -- EdJogg (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
References missing full details[edit]
I've been through the references and the following references are missing their full details and just seem to give a book with no further details: 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 19, 20, 23, 25, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 89 and 93. If you guys want a second opinion on whether I'm being reasonable to challenge this feel free - as it is a lot of work to fix this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've done a complete review of the references, and I think that all the ones that need page numbers now have them. Several are cited as the whole work where the majority of the text is relevant, for example the Brixham Branch is referenced to Potts' The Brixham Branch. MacDermot's huge tomes have been left at chapter level as the two editions have very different pagination due to the way the illustrations are laid out and the page size being altered.
- Unfortunately the list of reference numbers above no longer matches the article, but if there are ones that I have missed, please make a note of them here and I will look at them (but probably after the holiday weekend!) Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- References 1, 2, 98, 99 and 104 should probably be tightened up, a whole book reference doesn't seem necessary for the station opening dates and track milage. But its a very solid improvement - this is the only remaining issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Done All done now! Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
What about references 1 and 2? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)I'm not reading correctly today :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- References 1, 2, 98, 99 and 104 should probably be tightened up, a whole book reference doesn't seem necessary for the station opening dates and track milage. But its a very solid improvement - this is the only remaining issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Citations needed[edit]
For clarity the two additional citations are for the speed of the Cheltenham Spa Express and the existence of at least the Torbay Express if not the Bristolian, as it isn't clear that it didn't start at Bristol (though I'll pass the article without the latter sourced). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done Not my usual interest - neither area nor era - but I've finally found a GWR publication that sets out the speed of the train. That's the most difficult citation resolved, the rest should be plain sailing now! Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm happy with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)