Talk:Mangotsfield railway station

Mangotsfield 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: October 14, 2018. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mangotsfield railway station article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Trains: Stations / in UK Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 45, 2018

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Bristol Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gloucestershire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Bristol railway map.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Bristol and Gloucester Railway Line.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mangotsfield 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mangotsfield railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 14:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting since March? I'll do this. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been that long? I'd kind of forgotten this actually! Thanks The Rambling Man! -mattbuck (Talk) 19:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI I am still engaged, but it may be a few days before I can do the lead stuff. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man: beyond the capitalisation I've made all the requested changes. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lead could use a little expansion, it's quite short considering the length of the article.
I have expanded the lead a bit. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Mangotsfield and Bath Branch Line," -> branch line (not capitalised).
This is another controversial area. There was a big purge of capitalisations earlier this year which was quite vigorously protested. I've always taken the opinion that the Branch Line or Main Line is part of the name and thus as a proper noun should be capitalised. I think London Underground takes a lot of the blame here for their insistence on lower case. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consider linking junction station.
Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Less than two months, on" missing "... later" or "In ..."
Added "later". -mattbuck (Talk) 21:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consider linking chain (unit) as it's quite uncommon outside this kind of article.
It's linked in the notes section. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be linked first time in the prose too. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand where you're coming from the whole subject of measuring in chains has been under intense scrutiny recently at WT:UKRAIL and the style here was about as close to consensus as anyone could get. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of linking technical terms on their first usage in prose transcends local project guidelines. I’m cool with you using this archaic measurement unit, but please link it first time in the prose for our readers’ benefit. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It wasn't until " avoid contractions.
Reworded
"Line closed, station open." no full stop required for these notes. Apply to later table too.
Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"(1845-1866)" use en-dash here (per WP:DASH). Apply to later table too.
Done. I hate dash politics. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions which aren't complete sentences, i.e. are sentence fragments, shouldn't have a full stop (e.g. "The original station building, now a private house.")
Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Branch Line" again.
" nine trains per day each way, increasing to 18 each" go for 9/18 or nine/eighteen per MOSNUM.
Did not know that, though I suppose it makes sense. Changed to digits. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The Western Daily Press described " should be "The Western Daily Press described "
Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"[24][26][1](p86)" numerical order-> "[1](p86)[24][26]"
Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
" in 1948" that's a easter egg link, to be avoided. Perhaps rephrase so make it less "surprising" to our readers.

Done. Thanks Redrose64. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great Western Main Line -> main line.
Other "Branch Line" instances in the latter table.
"Gloucester - composed" en-dash.
Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
" van - had " ditto.
Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"passengers —- Thomas" just an en-dash!
I have no idea how that happened. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"severe injuries.[44][46][45] " numerical order.
Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's my first pass. All the GA criteria are basically met, but these issues would just polish the article nicely. Once you're done, I'll take one more look. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment mattbuck looking better, I removed the spaces around the en-dashes for year ranges, and then just noticed you have a Daily Mail reference (41 I think) in there, and per WP:DAILYMAIL, we don't consider that a reliable source. I think replace that and we're just about there. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced it with a BBC article, and shall thoroughly castigate myself for using the Daily [appropriate slur of your choice] in an article. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good then, so I'm passing this to GA. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]