Talk:Preston railway station
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Preston railway station 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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
 |
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 |
||
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stations. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
|
[edit] Major rewrite of station history
I've added a large section on the station history. In doing so I have removed most of the previous version's "Previously" section, as I couldn't find any easy way of seamlessly merging it with my own contribution. Part of the problem was that the material was undated and mostly unreferenced. Apologies to the editors who wrote that part. Feel free to re-add your contribution if you can. --Dr Greg (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations on an excellent edit. Fantastic information. Worley-d (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 4, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Check
- 2. Factually accurate?: Check
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Check
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Check
- 5. Article stability? Check
- 6. Images?: Check - These were very good. :)
Overall, a great article that's informative uses solid references which are reliable and verify the claims and it's got everything else needed. There are only a few things which I can see "wrong" with the article, these include:
- You may want to wikilink some words that are in the Station Layout and Amenities section.
- You may want to change the wording of the opening sentence on the 6th bullet point in the Usage and Services section. Currently, it doesn't make sense. To me at least. :)
- Try to use more of the you've already used by using <ref name=?>, but I'm sure that'll be done anyway.
- Try to convert some of the measurements, like in the history section you could convert the mph of the train crash to km/h using {{convert|40|mph|1|kmh}} and the same for 1225 feet which could be converted using {{convert|1225|ft|1|m}}.
But that's not much to fail an article, so well done! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Rt. 15:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Map
One addition that might be good - a plan of the station as it is today, as per the ones of the earlier appearances of the station? Worley-d (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
