Talk:Ffestiniog Railway/GA1

GA Reassessment

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ffestiniog Railway GA Reassessment

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"

There is no debate. Large sections of this article are completely uncited, the entire Decline of slate and development of tourism for instance. If this issue is not addressed then this article will be delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, end of discussion. I can see no point in arguing. However, see other responses

...

"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.

"Subjective opinions by the original writer" have no place in an encyclopedia article. It would be perfectly OK to quote a reliable source who used the phrase "spectacular mountainous scenery", but if one can't be found then it will have to go. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say it was such - I said "may be"

It must either be an attributed quotation or it must be removed. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...

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

...

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.

Who says so? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...

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.

There must still be some text summarising the main points of the list. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why - there is nothing for Rolling stock, but a similar pointer

I didn't notice that. That must also be expanded. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...

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

...

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)[reply]

...

"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.

Why are they numbered at all? They're not numbered in other articles, simply arranged in alphabetical order. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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??

It would be less relevant if they were numbered correctly. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...

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)[reply]

--Keith 20:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final response from one contributor (of many)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]