Talk:Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway

Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 8, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Lancashire and Cumbria Mid‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	February 18 2006

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 UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway.

Featured Article

While I'd love to see this article become a featured article, its currently a long way from being ready, I'm afraid. For a start there is an almost complete lack of sources, which immediately disqualifies this from being a featured article. I'd suggest that we work to improve the article based on feedback in the featured article debate, then take it to Wikipedia:Peer review for further review before trying for featured article status again. Best, Gwernol 19:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I can personally see many avenues that we could take this page down: Further details on the loco histories, with more photos included, especially of the top shed steam and oddballs; information on the 3' era, photos of Devon and Nab Gill etc.; the constitution of the rather eccentric "company plus society" organisation, and the reliance of a privately owned company on volunteer labour; further reading and references. I am sure that there are plenty more things as well. Pyrope 07:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note about the lack of sources

The article, while generally good, lacks any sources, so isn't verifiable by readers. In theory the article could be deleted due to lack of sources. The R&ER has been covered in plenty of reliable sources, so we should all make the effort to locate sources and cite them in the article. Gwernol 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "L'aal Ratty"

Ok, I was dubious about this for quite a while, but recent changes made my mind up. I visited the line quite a bit through the 1980s and '90s and, as I recall, the party line on the meaning of the term "l'aal ratty" is "we don't really know". There were about five or six different explanations floating around at the time, but none that seemed definitive. Until someone finds a good reference for any of them I have removed the references to the phrase's meaning from the main page. Pyrop e 02:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gauge dispute

Thank you Skarloey for clearing up the gauge dispute. I have modified the explanation to make it more compact. Biscuittin (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]