Talk:Hellingly Hospital Railway

Hellingly Hospital Railway is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 25, 2009.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 20, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
January 6, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
January 31, 2009	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 27, 2008

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).

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

B class assessment

Does the article have:

A particularly useful picture or graphic? Yes.

Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic? Yes

A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic? Yes

Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article? Yes

Article seems to cover the subject well, with no major omissions. Therefore I'm happy to grade this as B class. Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hellingly Hospital Railway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead needs to be expanded. Also, the prose is very choppy. You mightwant to combine some of the paragraphs and remove some of the subheaders.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

It's a decent article, but it needs some work before GA. I've put the article on-hold to allow for these issues to be addressed. Cheers, Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited the article in full, and expanded the lead. Thanks for taking a look! giggy _(:O) 14:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the pair of you... You may be seeing this again fairly soon, as I think it's going to be restructured & rewritten. – iridescent 15:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, thanks! This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pantograph or Tolley Pole?

The article says that both the loco and the railcar were fitted with pantographs and includes a reference, however the photo of the loco shows a trolley pole Talltim (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Harding book (which seems pretty definitive) goes with single trolley pole on each unit. Good catch! – iridescent 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-emptive note

I'm aware that "British Isles" is a controversial term, but have used it deliberately; "Great Britain and Ireland" or "UK & Ireland" aren't suitable substitutes, since Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and the Isle of Man all had (in the latter two cases, still have) their own rail networks. – iridescent 01:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voltage

No mention is made of the voltage that the line was electrified at in the article. Is this a case of something that is not known, or just an oversight? Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stones (1957), p. 869 mentions 500V d.c. - standard tramway voltage.

BTW, the references in this article are now becoming cluttered with multiple referals back to full inline citations. I propose to separate the inline citations "Notes" from the bibliography "References". Regards Oxonhutch (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Stones, H.R. (1957) "The Hellingly Hospital Railway", Railway Magazine 103 (680:December), p. 869–872

If you think it warrants it, by all means. The only sources used more than once (at present) are Harding, Stones and Mitchell & Smith and I didn't feel it warranted splitting out the bibliography for the sake of three sources, but I've certainly no objection to it if others think it's warranted. – iridescent 11:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External link removed

I've removed the external link that requires a £2/$4 payment to view it as per WP:ELNO. I don't see that the link serves any useful purpose other than to attempt to make the website it links to more money. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't added by a spammer, but was one of the sources I used in writing the article (although I've not included any material from it that isn't backed up by a print source, and have avoided citing it as there are free-access alternatives for everything taken from it). I agree it technically violates WP:EL, and if you think it really needs to be removed I certainly don't think it's worth edit-warring over – however, I'd personally say that even the free portion of the video available on that site is potentially of interest (although less so now that the photograph of the station in operation is on the article). Someone has now started an article on Hellingly Hospital (it was a redlink at the time I originally wrote this) so it would probably be more appropriate there; there's so little material on the hospital in its current half-open, half-derelict state, that I think including this would be a legitimate invocation of WP:IAR despite it being a paysite. (WP:ELNO isn't a blanket ban on paysites, but just a "try to avoid" guideline.) – iridescent 16:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would probably be more suited to the Hellingly Hospital article. Taking into consideration your comments above I would have no objection if it was added to that article. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above and on the article itself. (Had to, really, being a Sussex-based rail enthusiast!!) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! (Is it really pronounced "helling-lie" and not "helling-lee"? I'm not sure I've ever actually heard the name spoken out loud – I always assumed it rhymed with Amberley or Crawley.) – iride scent 16:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is; it's one of those Sussex pronunciation oddities (one of many!). Ardingly and Chiddingly are other examples. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EXcellent work you guys! keep up the good work Irocksockes1 (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that in Sussex villages ending in -ly are generally pronounced as though the ending was -lye. Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Wikipedia really is setting new standards for obscurity... Not that I think this shouldn't be an FA, it's just... so... inconsequential... Brutannica (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but… Firstly, one of Wikipedia's key strengths is that it covers topics the print encyclopedias don't touch (Britannica of Encarta will tell you all about Martin Luther, but not Ælfheah of Canterbury); secondly, while certainly obscure this looks more obscure than it is – the explosive growth of suburbia fuelled by electrification in the early 20th century means that in many ways the history of south-east England – and Chicago, Berlin, Moscow… – means the history of the geography of these areas in the period is the history of rail electrification (try to picture New York City or London if the only modes of transport were steam locomotives, horses and the occasional automobile); and as one of the earliest electrification schemes, things like this helped prove the viability of short-distance electric railways, paving the way for the subway systems that appeared in the following decades. – iride scent 21:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had the internet existed 100 years ago we certainly wouldn't be having this conversation. The Google Testers would be wetting themselves at the number of ghits. What will set new standards for obscurity are the thousands of third-tier professional baseball players and obscure television show plots that will still be floating around here in 100 years because notability is not temporary. AngoraFish 木 21:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering how on earth this is notable enough to have an article, nevermind being a FA! Computerjoe 's talk 22:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three books, a magazine article and several website articles for a start. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 22:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. People must love books on obscure subjects! Computerjoe 's talk 23:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People do! How do you think Wikipedia has exceeded 2 million articles?

Besides, don't you think that a hospital with its own railway is notable? Sheesh! Well done guys, an excellent candidate for the front page. EdJogg (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, iridescent basically satisfied me... although I almost think his/her comments should be included in the article. Brutannica (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hellingly Hospital Railway. 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) 11:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hellingly Hospital Railway. 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/20080612212900/http://www.abandoned-britain.com/PP/hellingly/1.htm to http://abandoned-britain.com/PP/hellingly/1.htm

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) 16:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hellingly Hospital Railway. 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/20090205071935/http://www.ukrailarchive.org/whr/rm12-1957-869.PDF to http://www.ukrailarchive.org/whr/rm12-1957-869.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) 22:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]