Talk:History of rail transport in Great Britain to 1830

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeHistory of rail transport in Great Britain to 1830 was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 3, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

GA comment[edit]

As with its sister article on the 1830-1922 period, this article lacks any significant analysis of the impact of rail transport on the British economy. It's my opinon that the article won't be broad in its coverage until this area of the topic is dealt with. I would be happy to give recommendations for sources if that would be helpful. MLilburne 11:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the lack of information on its impact is due to the lack of impact! (well, lack of impact prior to 1830). The year 1830 was chosen precisely because it conincided with the opening of the world's first locomotve hauled railway. Thus, any impact comes after 1830 and si thus outside the scope fo this article.
I've also left a message on Talk:History of rail transport in Great Britain 1830 - 1922. Thanks for your comments though. Tompw 14:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, point taken. I did think about this before I left the message, but I still wonder whether there might be some information on the pre-locomotive tramways, or on the economic forces that made rail transport so necessary. I'll think about the question a little more and see if I can find any information... for the time being I withdraw my criticism. Sorry about that. MLilburne 14:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA[edit]

This article has been assessed against the good article criteria. It has failed mainly because of issues surrounding the well written and factually accurate and verifiable criteria.

Well written: Fail.

  • The lead section needs to be rewritten. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article. Currently, it does not do this, with more reference being made to things outside the scope of the article (e.g. post-1830, and Germany) than to those inside.
  • Newcastle-on-Tyne should be written and wikilinked Newcastle upon Tyne, unless the 'on' was more fashionable in 1676 and that is the reason you wrote it like that
  • Explain jargon. What are guiding ledges? Why is the fact that Jessop's cast iron rails didn't have them of any note?
  • "transshipment" (in Early Public Railways) needs hyphenation
  • Either explain what wayleave is or wikilink to the relevent article.
  • The structure needs to be more clearly delineated. Why does the reader only find out these details about the Stockton and Darlington Railway in the Liverpool and Manchester Railway subsection: "sections of this line employed cable haulage, and only the coal trains were hauled by locomotives. Further, horse-drawn traffic could use the Stockton and Darlington upon payment of a toll."?

Factually accurate and verfiable: Fail. This article has far, far too many unsupported claims, making it read very much like original research. Dates, measurements, analysis of events; these all need references. Early rails and Early public railways do not have any references at all.

NPOV: Fail

  • "The Acts also protected investors from unrealistic, or downright fraudulent, schemes". Where is this from? Did you decide some schemes were downright fraudulent (POV), or did you read it (NPOV, but needs a reference)?
  • "The 35-mile line was a remarkable engineering achievement for its time"

Breadth: Fail. Some kind of analysis about this period is needed. Is there nothing analytical in your sources, e.g. a conclusion of a chapter on this period?

Stable: Pass.

Pictures: Pass. Chrisfow 01:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK... replies.
  • Well written. Point taken. It does need a better intro, and some better organisation. (Though I disagree with your "guiding ledges" comment... a guiding ledge is a ledge that guides... a bit sticking up (ledge) that makes sure things stay in place (guides)...umm... I can't see how else to put it). Agree with wikilinks/jargon in general comment.
  • Factually accurate and verfiable. Sorry, cannot agree with you there... there are references - such as Ransom 1989 and Ellis 1968. The thing is that these are geneal, rath r than specific to a sentence, so are not suitable for inline citations. That said, some specific statements/dates do need sources. (Why do I get the feeling that this article is going to have a citation for every sentence?)
  • NPOV: Surely the two statements are POV whether I read it and copied it, or wrote it myself? (Though neither is that case... came from another editor).
  • Breadth: What sort of analysis did you ahve in mind?
Tompw 11:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well written: Why is the lack of guiding ledges mentioned? Did the earlier rails have them, or did the later rails have them? It is very odd to mention the lack of something without putting it in context.
FA&V: The good article criteria state that a good article provides references to any and all sources used for its material, and that these are stated using an accepted form of inline citation after the sentence in which the fact or assertion appeared. In other words, relying on general references to pass GA is not good enough, inline citations must be used. I cannot see any GA reviewer passing this article while entire subsections are unreferenced.
NPOV: They arn't POV if they are from an accredited source which is referenced to that line. They are POV if it is an unsupported assertion, the point of view of that other editor.
Bredth: I agree with MLilburne before s/he changed their mind: "I still wonder whether there might be some information on the pre-locomotive tramways, or on the economic forces that made rail transport so necessary". I will concede that this is probably an area for future work rather than a requirement of GA, but if there is any analysis of this period out there, then it should be in here eventually.
Chrisfow 13:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage[edit]

This article seems to concentrate too much on the well-known early railways. What about the Bolton and Leigh Railway and the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway, both of which opened before the Liverpool and Manchester? Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. Add them.Pyrotec (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But analyse what each line achieved first and consider why lines such as the S*DR or the L&M are considered important. Chevin (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 August 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move after latest oppose !vote. Per Andrewa, no parens are necessary because they are not disambiguations. If the title of the first page is sub-optimal, consider a separate RM on the title ("before 1830"?) (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Parentheses are normally used for disambiguation, rather than concatenating it to the article title. Unsure what the title of the first article should be (when should the period start) Pppery (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a good idea for the latter four, not sure what to do about the first one though. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. This is not disambiguation at all. The existing titles are fine. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of rail transport in Great Britain to 1830. 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:

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) 04:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_to_1830&oldid=1197967148"