Talk:Bramhope Tunnel/Archive 1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is very short. It should summarize all aspects of the article and perhaps be three times the current length.

Done.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is there no more accurate length than "over two miles"?

Done.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• All units need to be converted to metric; use {{convert}} for simple conversion. Similarly, the gradient also needs to be stated in percent. I might be able to calculate the conversion if you need help on the gradient.

Done.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Need to mention "United Kingdom" in the first sentence or two. West Yorkshire? Many people have never heard of that.

Done.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• There should be mention of which line the tunnel is on.

Done.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Should be mention that it is double-track.

Done.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• There has to be some in-line explanation of who said the quote.

Done.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Use an endash (–), not a hyphen (-) for punctuation.

Done.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• There are some unreferenced claims in the body.

Done - I think - but let me know if there are any remaining.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• While writing something about "what is visible" is okay, it almost gets a bit excessive describing accessibility for spotters and the like.

Done.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would have liked to see a clearer declaration of who owns it, what line it is on, and the nature of traffic (passenger, intercity, commuter, freight etc.)

Done.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't force the image sizes. For accessibility reasons, some people want large and some want small images.

Done.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Galleries should be avoided. There is still some more room in the article body for some of the images; the rest can be link to via the Commons.

(Need help here. The transfer tool doesn't work for me, and the system won't let me load up someone else's images by myself. This is the big picture at the bottom, and the three gallery pictures below it.)--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Quite a number of the images are uploaded locally, and should be moved to the Commons. This tool makes it easy.

Need help with these 4 images. See comment above.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• What makes Ref 6 and 7 reliable? see WP:RS

Done (replaced refs).--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 5 and 12 is dead

(Checked and not dead.)--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Several of the refs have the title and publisher/work swapped.

(Can't identify these, but they may have been the refs that I replaced).--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• The first link is also a reference, and the other two are unsuitable. External links should be kept to a minimum, and image depositories (for illustrated articles) should be avoided.

Done.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice, well-written and interesting article. However, there are a few issues, so I am placing it on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply

• See above for my comments after each bullet point. Thank you very much for your help, by the way, Arsenikk - I hope I'm learning from this. Two main points:

(1) I need help with transferring those images. I have tried to do this in the past, and can never get that tool to work. Before, it was just Geograph images which I could upload manually myself from Geograph to Commons, but these four are private uploads, and the system won't let me do it on my own. This time I got halfway (a tag appeared on the original image filepage) but then the system at Commons just wouldn't let me upload this guy's images.

(2) Unreferenced claims: I think I sorted that out, but please let me know if there are any remaining.--Storye book (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've sorted out the images that needed to be moved to the Commons. Concerning the references, to take an example (#10): "BBC News". Rail tunnel to close for £10m revamp. 14 July 2003. Retrieved 2009-07-19. It is the title of the article "Rail tunnel to close for £10m revamp" which is the link, not "BBC News". This is because you have switched around work and title in a couple of the references. The links seem to be fine now, so just update the accessdate to 2 April. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd reply

Thanks, Arsenikk for all the help. I've corrected the #10 reference date as you requested. Now that the gallery images are safely in Commons and linked to the Commons category, I've deleted the gallery. However the image file that I messed up is still not in Commons. It's the big one, of the interior of the tower. It's a special view of a local landmark here that we are lucky to have; someone went to a lot of trouble to get it, so I don't want to lose it: File:Inside Bramhope Turret.jpg. Please could you kindly see if you can sort it out? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you did to ref 10, but it didn't solve the problem, only remove the date. The problem is, as I mentioned above, that you have misunderstood what title and work are. Title is the name of the individual page or document you are accessing, while work is the site or publisher. Note that work should only be used for periodicals, while publisher should be used for companies, offices, public bodies etc. The technical difference is that work puts it in italics, while publisher does not. I have cleaned this up. I also just noticed that the article has over-categorization. As for the Move-to-Commons tool, I think you need to sign up with TUSC. I've gotten rid of the bottom picture; there just isn't space for so many and people can always take a look at the Commons. Anyhow: Congratulations with a good article! Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow - thank you - my first GA article - and I'm not even entirely sure what that means - better look it up (I know it's on the page where I listed it, but I never expected the article to pass)! I was encouraged to do this by Excirial, so I have him to thank as well. I'm impressed that it was a much quicker and far more painless process than I expected. I might enter another one now - but this time I'll check it through beforehand for metrication, working links etc. Thanks again!--Storye book (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)