Talk:Midland Main Line upgrade
Midland Main Line upgrade 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: August 5, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
Wellingborough Aggregates Terminal was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 4 August 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Midland Main Line upgrade. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I propose a series of articles on various UK railway upgrades. This is one. Making a start GRALISTAIR (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Needs a complete rewrite.
editThis article needs a complete rewrite. It doesn't even mention things like when electric services started from Corby, and everything's confusingly ordered. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Be bold. Get editing then GRALISTAIR (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am flagging an issue for the benefit of other editors. My time to edit Wikipedia is limited.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
editThe following discussion 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Midland Main Line upgrade/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: JuniperChill (talk · contribs) 12:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 10:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Lots of sentences need improvement.
| |||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | LEAD: Article has all elements for the lead, provides an accessible overview and adequately describes what the project is, and its current phases. Article also appropriately includes contextual links early on, and lead is appropriately sized.
LAYOUT: Sections are appropriately ordered, no applicable specialised order. Images are appropriately sized. Article also uses emdash or endash where appropriate
This might, however, violate MOS:REDUNDANT. | |||
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Following spot-check of 10/70 sources, sources are reliable. | |||
2c. it contains no original research. | All claims are cited inline | |||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Using the copyvio tool, result of 15.3%. Of which is just phrases and important info | |||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Addresses main aspects of the topic | |||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article does not express any specific point of view | |||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit warring on this page | |||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images are tagged appropriately with copyright status, OGL and CC4. | |||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||||
7. Overall assessment. |
Discussion
edit- Excited to get started! Looks like an interesting topic DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Off the bat, I don't see anything that would cause a quickfail so I'll get right into it DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding MOS:BOLDLEAD, the article title is descriptive, just like the Great Western Main Line upgrade (initially titled 21st century modernisation of the Great Western Main Line) and A9 dualling project. Other names include Midland Main Line railway upgrade (former title), Midland Main Line electrification, MML electrification, etc. It was however the case before [1]. So yes I would say it violates WP:REDUNDANT.
- And the files: I have to remember that much of the electrification scheme was either cancelled (Cardiff to Swansea and Windermere), deferred (Oxford to Didcot/Bristol to Chippenham). From my understanding, the red lines were supposed to be complete by 2019. JuniperChill (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since I have been editing for a while, I will take a pause/break for today. I did the first part of the GA nomination. I should be able to do this tomorrow. JuniperChill (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good so far, I’ll take another look at it when you finish up DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done 1a JuniperChill (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I’ll take a look at it DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- The lead section does not currently comply with MOS:LEADCITE. 86.5.112.204 (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I’ll take a look at it DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done 1a JuniperChill (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good so far, I’ll take another look at it when you finish up DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since I have been editing for a while, I will take a pause/break for today. I did the first part of the GA nomination. I should be able to do this tomorrow. JuniperChill (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.
DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
edit
- ... that that the electrification of the Midland Main Line north of Kettering was revived in December 2021 after being paused in 2015, then scrapped in July 2017?
- Source: paused scrapped in 2017, then revived
- ALT1: ... that the Midland Main Line electrification project is going at a "snail's pace"? Source: https://westbridgfordwire.com/midland-mainline-electrification-by-2030-in-government-plans/
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Azahriah
- Comment: My fifth nomination and I need a QPQ for the first time. Luckily, I did that a few months ago. Also, my first GA article, though I didn't make that
JuniperChill (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC).
- What's surprising or interesting about this hook? "Infrastructure project delayed" is not surprising anywhere in the world, especially an Anglophone country. (t · c) buidhe 04:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hopefully this is more interesting, but idk if the wording is the best.
- Alt2: "that when the Midland Main Line was first electrified in the 1980s between London and Bedford, driver-only operation was introduced, leading to industrial dispute?" JuniperChill (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Merge
editI have now merged in the article Wellingborough Aggregates Terminal. GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)