Talk:Shirehampton railway station

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vincent60030 (talk · contribs) 05:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say this article looks good if you were to look through it briefly and I can see great efforts have been done to improve this article. Checklinks reports no deadlinks, just a few minor path changes. However, the history section looks a little bit too long so try to split the section to a few subsections. On with the review......

Note:

• As I am in my school years, this review process may take a while to be completed. :p
• After an issue has been resolved, put a {{done}} tag next to the issue solved.
• All sentences needing reference can use the same reference.

Infobox

• (no issues, hooray!)

Lead

• Why not have another paragraph describing briefly the contents in the history section?

  You mean the second paragraph of the lead as it is? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  I don't get what you mean. :p But I meant that more contents of the History section should be included. However, it should be in the third paragraph. In this expansion, there are possibilities of the need to alter the sentences in Paragraph 2. Vincent60030 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  The historical summary is similar to the Sea Mills GA, and actually a lot of my other station GAs don't have any historical context in the lead (I might go back and fix that). However I'm not sure a third paragraph is warranted - a lot of the information in the history section relates to service provision, which isn't relevant to a top-level summary. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  @Mattbuck: I suppose you can include the most important info(s) in the third paragraph. You don't need to include everything, just the ones where people reading the article are expected to know about (this this this). Vincent60030 (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 16:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• add references to sentences in the lead which will be easily challenged like this sentence:

  "It is 7.6 miles (12.2 km) from Bristol Temple Meads." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent60030 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 1 May 2015

  Uncontroversial information in the lead which is repeated in the article body need only be referenced in the body (see WP:CITELEAD). At Shirehampton railway station#Description we find the sourced value is 7 miles 50 chains - this is exactly 7.625 miles; I suppose that it was rounded to 7.6 miles for the lead. However, I've adjusted the lead to match the value at Description. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  Like — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent60030 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 May 2015

  @Redrose64: I had it as decimal miles because previous GA reviews have complained about uncommon measurements (chains) in the lead section. I'd agree with them on this - I think that decimal miles works better, chainage can be introduced later in the article. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Description

Third Paragraph

• "......;help points[7] show next train information and allow users to contact railway staff." This part should have a reference supporting the help point showing the next train information and also to contact railway staff. (a picture ref is allowed)

  Why did you duplicate the reference? It's best to keep all references to the end of a sentence generally, but there's certainly no reason to add a reference halfway through a sentence then duplicate it at the end of that same sentence! -mattbuck (Talk) 13:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Just wanted to let you know that it is necessary when the sentence has a statement but different parts of the statement are supported by different references. "...show next train information and allow users to contact railway staff." the reference does not support this part.

  I don't think a citation is needed to explain what a help point is. Redrose64 would you agree? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Quite. I think that too much is being expected for references: the GA requirements for references are lower than those for FA; this GA review should not push for FA standards. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Ok, its alright then. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

History

• In general, this section needs some sub-sections.

   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

• "The platform was covered along its entire length." Covered by what?

  As in there was a roof of some variety. I don't think that's unclear. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Ok, nevermind. Vincent60030 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why not have a picture of the old station platform to support that the platform was entirely covered.

  Because we don't have a picture of it. The station has been redeveloped several times since then, and to the best of my knowledge there are no photos of it from that age. There are several later photos, but these have at best unclear copyright status and so cannot be used. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Ok, excusable. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Fourth Paragraph

• Again, why not have a picture illustrating the sentence.

  Oakley's book has a 1903 picture, but given this is only 112 years ago it could well be in copyright (only need the photographer to live until 1946). It's far from unknown for photos from the 1890s to be copyrighted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. It's fine then. Vincent60030 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• ......on the south side of the line, coming in to use on 16 May." The "coming into use" phrase sounds weird.

  I think it's a reasonable thing to say. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Ok then. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Who is Nott Brodie?

   Done The reference just says Nott Brodie, but I think we can assume it's Nott Brodie & Co Ltd http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5060572 - I've changed it to include the & Co Ltd. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• I shall officially declare this is a good article. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  Excellent! -mattbuck (Talk) 08:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sixth paragraph

• "From 1928 many trains to Avonmouth were extended to Severn Beach." It should be train services.

   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 14:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Future

• (no issues, hooray!)

For these two sections, strike and put a {{done}} tag after each completed task.

Notes

• Note 3 should have a ref
• Note 4: same as above

 Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

References

• Ref 1 (OS Landranger Map 172 – Bristol & Bath. Southampton: Ordnance Survey. 2008. ISBN 978-0-319-22914-9.) needs an accessdate

  Why? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  Why not? However, it won't affect the article significantly but it's better to have an accessdate. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  No, it's not. It's not a web page - it's a physical map. If you add an accessdate parameter, it will throw the error . There is no URL for this source, because it's a printed work. Try following that last link for further explanation. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for letting me know. ;) Like Vincent60030 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 4 (Baker, S.K. (2010). Rail Atlas of Great Britain and Ireland (12 ed.). Ian Allan. ISBN 978-0-86093-632-9.) should have the date where the item was published

  It already has that. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry, :p Vincent60030 (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 14 should be specified that it's a timetable

   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 09:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 16 (Deaves, Phil. "Engineers' Line References: HAA Hotwells and Avonmouth Line") does not support that sentence

  There's an amount of addition/subtraction involved between the various ELR references. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Ok. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 17 (Maggs, Colin (1975). The Bristol Port Railway and Pier. The Oakwood Press. pp. 3–7, 12, 15–18, 23–24, 47–51.) needs to be splitted up so that each claim has a specified page of its own, not joined up Eg: pp.3-7 support the third and fourth sentence of the first paragraph in the History section

  I'm not really in favour of splitting references like that - I think it confuses the issue by making people think two references refer to different books rather than the same one. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  It appears there is a way around this using {{rp}}. I'll modify the article accordingly. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Again for ref 18 (Maggs, Colin G (2008) [First published 1981]. Rail Centres: Bristol (#21) (3rd ed.). Nottingham: Booklaw Publications. pp. 15–17, 40–42, 107–108. ISBN 1-901945-30-8)

  As above. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 19 ("Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways making rail difference". This is Bristol (Northcliffe Media). 25 September 2010. Retrieved 14 April 2012.) does not support the claim that there's no Sunday service

   Done You're right, that was probably a leftover from a previous version. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 20 (Frith, Malcolm (November 1999). "Track record: West and South-West". BBC. ) does not support how the franchise was transferred to Wales and West

   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 20:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 38 ( "Modernising the Great Western" (PDF). Network Rail. Retrieved 9 June 2012.) should have a page number.

   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 18:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 41 ( "FoSBR Newsletter" (PDF) (78). Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways. Autumn 2011. Retrieved 9 April 2012.) Did you mean page 7 and 8? If not then it needs a page no.

   Done - Ironically it was pages 7-8, though the (78) is issue 78. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  LOL. Vincent60030 (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 44 ("FoSBR Newsletter" (PDF) (85). Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways. April 2014. Retrieved 20 November 2014.) same as above

   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 18:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

General comments

@Vincent60030:, you've listed a lot of sentences as needing references. However where a sentence doesn't have an explicit reference it is because it's all part of whatever the next reference group is. There's no point doing something along the lines of "Blah blah blah.^[1] Bhad-diddy-blah-diddy-blah.^[1] More blaaaaaaah.^[1]" References make the prose harder to read, so it's best to make them limited where possible. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: Ok then, but maybe I suggest you to have one ref every two sentences. Deal? Vincent60030 (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There has never been a requirement that every single sentence have its own reference. Sometimes you're just writing a long bit from a single reference, as in the timetable section. This has never been an issue at any other GA review, and is common practice on Wikipedia. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: Oh and did you notice that Wikiproject Bristol "suggests" that a map would be included in the article? Vincent60030 (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe any other Bristol station articles have a map, certainly none of the GA ones do. I can add one, but the insistence on maps always seemed somewhat odd to me as that's why we have linked coordinates. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then. A map is not needed. Vincent60030 (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Review overview

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   the lead needs more description about the history (one paragraph only)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shirehampton 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314050333/http://www.walesandwest.co.uk/ to http://www.walesandwest.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120002540/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Campaign-trains-Bristol-Temple-Meads-half-hour/story-14446079-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Campaign-trains-Bristol-Temple-Meads-half-hour/story-14446079-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120708233227/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/100-million-Bristol-Metro-train-network-2016/story-16492523-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/100-million-Bristol-Metro-train-network-2016/story-16492523-detail/story.html

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) 18:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shirehampton 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927183020/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/3111_Route_2013_Great_Western_Main_Line.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/3111_Route_2013_Great_Western_Main_Line.pdf
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130904030729/http%3A//www.rail%2Dreg.gov.uk/upload/xls/stat_usage.xls to http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/xls/stat_usage.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413065743/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/uploadedFiles/networkrailcouk/Contents/Improvements/The_Great_Western/WesternVision.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/uploadedFiles/networkrailcouk/Contents/Improvements/The_Great_Western/WesternVision.pdf

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) 12:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)