Talk:Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
August 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Trains Portal
DYK February 18, 2006
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
B This article has been rated as B-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 UK Railways.
Low Importance: low within UK Railways WikiProject.

[edit] Featured Article

While I'd love to see this article become a featured article, its currently a long way from being ready, I'm afraid. For a start there is an almost complete lack of sources, which immediately disqualifies this from being a featured article. I'd suggest that we work to improve the article based on feedback in the featured article debate, then take it to Wikipedia:Peer review for further review before trying for featured article status again. Best, Gwernol 19:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I can personally see many avenues that we could take this page down: Further details on the loco histories, with more photos included, especially of the top shed steam and oddballs; information on the 3' era, photos of Devon and Nab Gill etc.; the constitution of the rather eccentric "company plus society" organisation, and the reliance of a privately owned company on volunteer labour; further reading and references. I am sure that there are plenty more things as well. Pyrope 07:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note about the lack of sources

The article, while generally good, lacks any sources, so isn't verifiable by readers. In theory the article could be deleted due to lack of sources. The R&ER has been covered in plenty of reliable sources, so we should all make the effort to locate sources and cite them in the article. Gwernol 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)