Wikipedia:Peer review/Talyllyn Railway/archive1

Talyllyn Railway

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is nearly up to FA standard. It was recently nominated at WP:FAC, (see archive), but failed, presumably because some of the criticisms had not been fully addressed. Any assistance in giving this article the final boost it needs would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,  —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Nice to find out Skarloey is based on an engine on a real line - always feared he was a crass ploy to sell more books, videos and toys. Obviously this article is a labor of love - here are some suggestions to make it even better (mostly pretty nit-picky):

• I would look at the FAC as a very detailed peer review and make sure all of those comments had been addressed. I would also treat them as examples and look for similar problems throughout the article and fix those.
• According to WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the whole article and not inlcude any new information not already in the article. My rule of thumb is that every header or subheader should somehow be in the lead, so the fictional connection is missing and I would double check everything else.
  • Done
• You might want to use the {{convert}} template for units - I notice the semi-automated peer review finds some issues there.
• You might want to ask the League of Copyeditors or one of the copyediting volunteers at WP:PRV to help with tightening the article. Just in the lead The gauge of the track is 2 feet 3 inches (686 mm). This is an unusual gauge, and was shared by only three other public railways... could be perhaps The gauge of the track, 2 feet 3 inches (686 mm), is unusual, and was shared by only three other public railways...
• I know the article convention is to use modern names, but where the old name makes something clearer, I think it should also be given. For example, "Aberdyfi (also known as Aberdovey)" would provide context for "Aberdovey Slate Company" later - see WP:PCR
  • Done for Aberdyfi - I don't think there are any other cases.
• Think about what is most important in each sentence and clause and order them accordingly, for example in However the standard gauge Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway was expanding rapidly from its base at Machynlleth and in 1863 had reached Tywyn, although the line was initially isolated from the rest of the system because of difficulties in bridging the estuary of the Afon Dyfi to the south. McConnel decided to build his line from the quarry to Tywyn, the nearest point where slate could be transferred to the standard gauge railway.[12] I would perhaps move the clause "although the line was initially isolated from the rest of the system because of difficulties in bridging the estuary of the Afon Dyfi to the south" last, something like The standard gauge Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway was expanding rapidly from its base at Machynlleth and in 1863 had reached Tywyn, so McConnel decided to build his line from the quarry to Tywyn, as the nearest point where slate could be transferred to the standard gauge railway.[12] This was despite the fact that the line was initially isolated from the rest of the system because of difficulties in bridging the estuary of the Afon Dyfi to the south. or something like this. Makes clearer why Tywyn was chosen as the terminus.
• Refs generally go after punctuation, generally at the end of a sentence - several are in the middle of sentences with no punctuation before them and no other ref at the end of the sentence.
  • Done
• Avoid one or two sentence paragraphs unless absolutely needed. Combine with other paragraphs.
• Could the Rolling stock and Operations sections be combined?
• Beautiful maps and very nice pictures.
• Could the Stations and halts table be split out as a list article with a short summary left behind? If so it might be a WP:FL. See WP:Summary style
  • Done
• I would try to find a model article, an FA train line, preferably one that is also historic (if such an FA exists).
• Could the Route section be made smaller in the TOC? Perhaps "Original line", "Extensions and branches" and "Stations and halts" (3 subsections instead of 7)?
  • Done, but the flow needs improving

These are just some suggestions, you might want to ask at WikiProject:Trains or WP:PRV for more reviewers. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've updated some of the above - I'll cross them out when they're fully resolved. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 12:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)