Talk:Railways on the Isle of Wight/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 15:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review the article.

Assessment

Initial comments

There are a number of footnotes with links that don't work: Footnotes 9, 10 and 13 (Isle of Wight Railway website), 19 and 28 (dead links?). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links

(Lead section) The Grouping ('Railways Act 1921') as in the body; consider unlinking heavy rail, the link isn't useful.
(Early beginnings) ...from Cowes to Newport… - link Cowes.
(The independent companies) Link Cowes & Newport Railway Company (Isle of Wight Central Railway); Ryde ; Ventnor ; Sandown; receivership;' Brading; Bembridge; Freshwater (Freshwater, Isle of Wight); Merstone; First World War; rolling stock.
(Southern Railway) The Tourist should be in italics.
(Nationalisation...) Link nationalised (Nationalization); mushroom farm (Fungiculture).
(The future) Unlink Network Rail (already linked in the body); link Ventnor Downs (St Boniface Down).

General comments

I am only able to assume that Template:Railways on the Isle of Wight contains no errors - there do not seem to be citations to check it for accuracy. (Incidentally, coastal stations such as Bembridge appear to be inland according to the template: I would suggest taking away the blue water symbols at the top and bottom, so that this problem doesn't exist. Something to add to the template talk page, I imagine)

Not all the distances have been converted to km.
Single-sentence captions for images shouldn't end in a full stop.

Lead section

Both the image at the top and the introduction to the lead give the impression that none of the network now runs. I would suggest the lead needs to emphasise the current services that operate, perhaps before describing what once existed.

The independent companies

Shortly after this,… - replace with something less vague, or omit it.
Minor point - improve the prose by replacing Also in 1864,… with 'That year,…'.
Assuming that readers are unfamiliar with places on the island, for instance consider replacing ... from Ryde to Shanklin,... with ' between the towns of Ryde and Shanklin,…' or something similar.
... simply run along the pier. - why simply?
Brading and Bembridge - I would include that Brading is an inland village and Bembridge was originally the site of the island's main port.
...under a mutual agreement. - consider amending to '...under a mutual agreement between the two companies.' (presumably this is correct)
The network was completed… - amend to 'The island's railway network was completed…'?
I would condense the current number of paragraphs (11) down to six - 1-2; 3-4; 5; 6-7-11; 8-9; 10. (See MOS:PARA, which talks about single sentence paragraphs, of which there are a few here).
However, in 1913 this agreement deteriorated to the point that the FYN was forced to purchase its own locomotives and rolling stock. If this sentence was placed after Services on its line were operated by the IWCR under a mutual agreement. (or better still, combined with it), the clumsy sounding last paragraph could then go.
...was abandoned due the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. - sounds slightly better if put as 'was abandoned in 1914, due the outbreak of the First World War.'.
…, and most of the income… - citations needed for this and the remainder of the sentence.
Ditto ...in 1913 this agreement deteriorated….
Ditto In 1889, the Freshwater, Yarmouth and Newport Railway (FYN) opened its 12-mile line....
After the Railways Act 1921 came into force from January 1923,… - consider amending to 'The Railways Act 1921, which took effect from January 1923,…'.
...varied significantly… - this needs to be amended to make it less vague.
...approved in 1903, 1904 and 1909. - it sounds as if it was approved three times, was there some reason for this?

Southern Railway

This paragraph suffers a little from a use of generalising. Is it possible for ...some time due to financial wrangling. to be more specific than this? (see WP:RELTIME)
Ditto significant investment and many coaches.
A minor technical point here, but at GA consistency is important. Is it ' W 24—Calbourne ' or ' W 24—Calbourne '? Is it 'W29 Alverstone' or 'W29-Alverstone'?
Willing to be corrected, but was not Southern Railway an independent company as well? If so you will have to rename the title Southern Railway, perhaps to something like 'Amalgamation'.

Nationalisation, privatisation and preservation

It's unclear who the management are.
...their substantial fleet of historic carriages. - this needs to be less vague - how many carriages, and why were they historic?
Isle of Wight Steam Railway - this paragraph could do with being expanded, explaining more of the formation of the company and details of its operation. Also I would separate the heritage railway part of this section, at present it sits rather confusingly imo in the middle of the discussion of the BR period. The section would be better following the order given by the title.
...were nationalised as British Railways. - unfamiliar readers also need to be told that it was called British Rail between 1965 and the 1990s.
...and in 1996 the passenger service was privatised… - should there be a new paragraph here?
The last sentence could do with being rewritten to help it make more sense, so that phrases like the operator and immediate foundations are clearly explained. Also, 'owns', not own.

Nationalisation, privatisation and preservation - Fate of the abandoned lines

...until recently… - needs to be specific (MOS:RELTIME}.
Amend title to 'The abandoned lines'? ...the one… - '...the tunnel…'?
From 2004 Ventnor and St Lawrence were served by the Ventnor Rail Link bus from Shanklin, although this was withdrawn in 2010 after… - I would amend to something like 'Between 2004 and 2010 Ventnor and St Lawrence were served by the Ventnor Rail Link bus from Shanklin, which was withdrawn after ...'.
It looks like Ref 4 (IOW Beacon) should be at the end the sentence.
Several parts… - just 'Parts…'.
...notably the island's section of National Cycle Route 23… - why notably? Amend to '...the section of National Cycle Route 23 on the island…'.

The future

The new trains are being built… - this is possibly incorrect at the present time, due to the UK lockdown (June 2020). Amend to 'The new trains due to be completed…?
Imo the text is easier to read if ref 21 joins ref 22 at the end of the sentence.
...are contributing… - consider either '…have contributed…' or '...have agreed to contribute…', which make more sense.
...also agreed… - why also?
I would replace terminal, seeing as this is an an article about railway lines…
...has been previously dismissed … - the sentence from this point needs copy-editing.
Network Rail have also agreed to fund £5m of upgrade work on Ryde Pier to secure the line's future, because failure to do so would be terminal to the line's operation. - Does the funding have to come from Newtork Rail, or could it be from elsewhere? Perhaps something like 'Network Rail have also agreed to fund £5m of upgrade work on Ryde Pier, which would secure the line's future.' is enough here.
The first of the Class 484 trains is due to arrive on the line in the summer of 2020. It's now June, does this sentence need rethinking?
...will take place over the winter of 2020-2021,... - amend to '...is planned to take place over the winter of 2020-2021,...'?
The island's MP… - be specific: who is/was the MP. Also, clarification is needed to explain how an MP can "express an interest with a department".
The last sentence of the third paragraph currently makes little sense and is poorly written, for instance:

...return trains to Newport… - is an idiom and so imo needs changing (MOS:IDIOM), also a return train to some readers means a train that takes you back the way you came.
...but responded to the proposal… - are the IOWSR responding to their own proposal here?
...extend Westward… and ...open to discussing… both need to be more specific (e.g., discussions with which people?).

Footnotes

It is not clear to me that Ref 4 (the Isle of Wight Beacon web page) is necessarily a reputable source (WP:REPUTABLE). Is there further information available about the author of the article, the date it was written, or what publications were cited to produce the article?
WP:CITESTYLE refers to the need for a consistent style, it's worth checking through the Footnotes section for minor changes to make, e.g.:

~~Page numbers need to be written consistently— p. 5., not p.5, or p. 5 etc..~~
Ref 7 shouldn't be in capitals, even though the source is,
~~Ref 11 lacks a publication year.~~
Newspapers are in italics (e.g. Isle of Wight County Press).
Ref 20: 'Wight's', not Wights.

Sources / Bibliography / Further reading

~~Allen and Macleod (1986) is cited, and so shouldn't be in this section.~~
Is Allen (2014) the same as this source? If it is, the title needs to be amended, and consider adding the url.
The templates need 'ref=none' added to each one to remove the error messages that some readers (including me) are getting..
~~There no need for both an isbn and an oclc number for any of the books (the latter can be removed).~~
~~The isbn numbers should be hyphenated in a consistent way throughout the article (it is done in some instances).~~
The 'Further reading' list is much longer than the list 'Sources' given. Any particular reason why they the books were not used for footnotes in the article?
~~It's not clear to me why Burroughs in its own section.~~

External links

Imo the Google maps page could is misleading, as it could be interpreted that the lines it shows still exist today. What do you think?
Consider adding the NLS link to the Victorian OS maps of the Isle of Wight (25 inch series), which show the railway system in exceptional detail link here).
Consider adding p. 225 of The Railway Magazine (1899) has images and text that may be of interest to readers.

On hold

The article is an interesting read, but it needs a bit of work to be done on it before it reaches GA status. I'm placing it on hold for a week until 21 June—please feel free to discuss any issues with me. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No response

As there have been no changes to the article by since it was put on hold, the article will fail on 21 June unless the issues raised are fully addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have addressed some of the comments—I'll put the article on hold for another week until 28 June. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]