Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project navigation bar talk
IRC (freenode.net) #Wikipedia-Trains-en
Project participants talk
Project banner (doc) {{TWP}} talk
Project category talk
Manual of style (WP:TWP/MOS) talk
Welcome message talk
Departments
Assessments (WP:TWP/A) talk
Peer review (WP:TWP/PR) talk
To do list talk
New article notes talk
Task forces
Article maintenance talk
Assessment backlog elim. drive talk
By country series talk
Categories talk
Images talk
Locomotives talk
Maps talk
Models talk
Monorails talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk
edit · changes

The peer review department of the Trains WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Trains WikiProject. While there is a general intent to expand this process to allow for review by subject experts, the preparations for this are not yet complete.

Contents

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

  1. Add pr=yes to the {{TrainsWikiProject}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article. If a peer review has been made in the past, move the existing page to another name such as [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/Name of nominated article, old review]], then start the new page in the original name and provide a link to the new archive page you just created.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace pr=yes with oldpr=yes in the {{TrainsWikiProject}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.

[edit] Requests on Wikipedia:Peer review

[edit] Flytoget

I've tried to get this article up from almost unreferenced start-class, and I hope to get it to GA. Could I please get some feedback on the article to make it even better. I also hope to get clarified if I do any systematic mistakes, since this is a article in the general style that I tend to write in. Thanks. Arsenikk (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 15:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've worked a lot on the MARTA article in the past year and a half with several other core editors. About 9 months ago the article achieved GA status. I would like to continue improving the artice, perhaps to FA status, but I am unsure of what areas need improvement. Thanks, Biomedeng (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Some comments: Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the whole article and should at least mention (even if only a word or phrase) all of the headers and subheaders in the article. You need to do this. Images are supposed to be set to "thumb" size so the reader's preference takes over, although sometimes a map can be made larger to help with legibility. One of the images have no caption Image:MARTA Rail Map.svg and one needs better explanation of the numbers in it Image:Beltline-breaks.png. Every paragraph needs at least one reference (the first two in "Heavy rail network" have none). Include dates in information that is likely to change, one example is the "Fare structure and operation" section. Headers should not have the title in them, so "Misuse of MARTA funds by employees for personal expenses" could be "Misuse of funds by employees for personal expenses" as one example. The references mostly do not follow the MOS: internet sources should have the url, publisher, the date accessed, and the title. Some sections are pretty list-y too. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I know the references need to be formatted and that is a big task when I have some time. Thanks for the head up on the lead section...I will star working on that. I will also change up the images and add references to the sections that have none. All of this critique really helps. Thanks. Biomedeng (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have implemented some of the changes and used strikethrough to corss them off. I will work on the reference formmating when I have more time. Biomedeng (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I updated the references so that they all follow the MOS and also added additional references to the sections/paragraphs that were largely unreferenced. Any additional feedback is welcome. Biomedeng (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed lists and instead incorporated the information into prose/paragraph format. I feel I have now addressed all of these suggestions and any additional feedback for the article would be most appreciated. Biomedeng (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Avoid having images on both sides of the text - the end of the article is image-poor, so one or two could perhaps be moved down there. Also might want to request a copy edit. Hope this helps and thanks for your reviews here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rail transport in Victoria

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially expanded, and believe it covers all relevant points of the subject. I have also referenced all relevant statements, and want to know if there is anything I have missed myself.

Thanks, Wongm (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Peripitus

Just a few notes - not a subject I have any expertise in.

  • The lead section is too short and should summarise the entire article per the notes in WP:LEAD Y
  • The lead gives the impression that Victoria only used broad, narrow and standard gauge. Although the word narrow links to an article on that subject it's not comprehensive. A list by Tim Fischer tells me that both articles are missing details on the lines made with.
    • "Starvation Narrow" - 4'0" - used in the 19th century only at Starvation creek
    • "Rubicon Narrow" - 3'4 1/2" - Ribicon forest in the 19th/20th centuries
    • "Lorne Log Narrow" - 3'1" - Lorne Pier to Mill
    • and other lines of gauges: 3'0", 900mm, 2'6", 700mm, 2'3"Y
  • The history section, for better flow, should come straight after the leadY
  • Lots of one-sentence paragraphs that need to be grouped into larger paragraphs following a common theme.Y
  • add non-breaking spaces (& nbsp;) between numbers and the units to prevent them breaking over lines and becoming difficult to read.Y

- Peripitus (Talk) 13:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help - any other thoughts? Wongm (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes

How can the article be improved? Any constructive comments will be gratefully received. Eventually, once all comments received have been rectified, the article will be posted up for FA status. Thank you.--Bulleid Pacific 10:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from The Rambling Man

Hello Bulleid Pacific, as promised, some comments to push this on its way...

  • The lead starts with "The SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes..." while the title of the article is "SR West Country Class" and the infobox header is "SR Unrebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain Class". I like consistency, so if multiple names etc are used, be consistent with all of these parts of the article.
  • WP:MOS for section headings - just stick to "References" and don't over-cap, so (nationalisation) is fine, we're not dealing with proper (or German!) nouns here.
  • Don't like TOCleft on my browser (Firefox under MacOSX) so consider ditching it. It really squashes the Background section on both left and right-hand sides.
  • Spell check required, e.g. "primarilly", "unrebuilt" (the latter may be common train aficionado parlance but it doesn't work for me!)
  • rebuilt is bold, why?
  • What's a "secondary route"? Bear in mind for the non-expert reader, terms like this are difficult to comprehend.
  • Again, with FA in mind, you could explain or, at a minimum, wikilink terms such as "freight", "express", "chain-driven valve gear" etc.
  • "...larger Merchant Navy class.[2]" - that ref [2] needs to be made into a proper citation.
  • "..outshopping..." - what does that mean?
  • "...footplate spectacle plates..." - wow, another specialist term. FAs need to be accessible to all, you need to qualify this somehow, to make it readable to all.
  • Sometimes you use SR, sometimes it's expanded. Be consistent, and unless you're referring to the subject of the article, I'd stick with Southern Railway.
  • "...owns/regions/aircraft/personalities/squadrons ..." - this makes for grim prose. Reword required.
  • "(rather unfortunately!)" - I know what this means but it is colloquial, informal and non-encyclopaedic. If you want to keep the spirit of the meaning, I'm afraid you'll need to explain yourself!
  • "Southern" section needs to be flowed better, too many short paras, I'd make it one, or at most two, paragraphs.
  • Over use of parentheses. If something's worth saying, say it in prose, not in parentheses. You'll easily be able to swap them for commas and the effect will be better prose and easier reading.
  • Same thing that I said about SR applies to BR.
  • "Thus 66 Squadron was the only BB Class member not to have a crest>" - what's happened here? Finish with a . rather than a > (obviously!) but another single sentence paragraph so flow it back into the previous paragraph.
  • "Individual class members list" section - not keen at all. With a section like this, you might as well create a standard looking "See also" section with just the wikilink in place.
  • "List of Preserved light pacifics" could be a sub-section, the heading is a bit strange (it's not a proper heading for a start).
  • "34023 Blackmoor Vale appeared in the 2002 film "Two Men Went To War" starring Kenneth Cranham and Leo Bill: a strange choice considering that this locomotive had not been built at the time of the film's setting. This sort of anachronism clearly didn't bother director John Henderson too much, as a postwar Bedford OB coach was also used." could do with being added into a new "Popular culture" section, the film could be wikilinked to, avoid "didn't" - should be "did not", what does "OB" mean? Do Cranham and Bill have their own pages? Is "...a strange choice..." original research or do you have something you can use to cite it?

Hope some of these comments make sense and help. Let me know if there's more I can do to help, as always. The Rambling Man 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Bulleid Pacific

OK, I think I've sorted it out. Have another look and is there anything else? Cheers. --Bulleid Pacific 14:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from EliminatorJR

Some terms that probably need a little explanation for the layman

  • semi-fast
  • route availability
  • post-nationalisation (it's in the Construction History paragraph but isn't linked until later)

The first paragraph of the "The British Railways batch" section reads a bit awkwardly to me, and might need recasting.

Though used in the first paragraph and the list of preserved locos, the term 'Spam Can' is never actually explained.

Hope this helps. ELIMINATORJR TALK 22:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from EdJogg

Thanks for the opportunity of learning about the GA/FA/Peer review processes -- very educational.

Having had yet another look at the article, and minded of The Rambling Man's comments, the following are some more comments for your consideration.

  • The article doesn't actually mention why they were known as "light pacifics", or at least, not directly. Might be a challenge squeezing this in. (Don't forget that the term "Pacific" is rather alien to a non- rail person, although I've added it to the Infobox to help).
  • Related point: should the term be capitalised ('Light Pacific'), since it is effectively a name, or all lower-case? (I would prefer the former, as it is usually used as a name rather than a description.
  • There's some overlap between the "Background" and "Construction history" sections
  • "Construction history" mentions Nationalisation without explaining what it refers to; other terms are also used before being defined
  • You rightly compare them to the MNs, but you miss the opportunity of describing features such as the 'air-smoothed casing' (which you refer to 'in passing' later) and other stuff (presumably) described on the MN page.
  • '"West Country Class" class scroll', quite apart from the unfortunate repetition, really needs a photo
  • Where were the plaques fitted relative to the nameplates?
  • Is it worth mentioning that, since scrapping, the plates are highly prized by the organisations concerned.
  • Would be helpful to link the colours if possible, or at least explain 'modified Southern Malachite Green' (etc).
  • Hammerblow?, "Modernisation Plan"? "Spam Can"? (used in loco list)
  • Hope this helps... EdJogg 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(These comments were posted on the original peer review page (Wikipedia:Peer review/SR West Country/Battle of Britain Classes/archive1) and were not seen. Many may have been addressed subsequently.)

EdJogg 23:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few more comments from EliminatorJR

  • In the Construction History section, the sentence that begins "Other refinements.." doesn't quite scan - should it be "Together with other refinements.." or suchlike?
  • In the same section, need to define the term "raves" in relation to the streamlined tender.
  • 'Unrebuilt' and 'Un-rebuilt' used through article - need to standardise on one form.
  • I've done a few minor copyedits.

HTH, ELIMINATORJR TALK 21:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trams in Adelaide

Currently listed as a Good article but needs other sets of eyes to look over it, particularly as it only has one major editor to date. I'm working this towards FA and need advice on what is wrong or missing - Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CloudNine

On the whole, this article looks really good. A few comments:

  • You may want to the change the table style to "wikitable" - it'll look nicer. See Help:Table.
    fixed
  • It might be worth coverting the timeline into a table; see how other articles of a similar nature handle it.
    Converted. Does seem to look better with the preceeding table.
  • Where's Adelaide? (I know where it is, but many readers might not). Add a note in the lead; perhaps after the first instance of the town's name?
    Fixed - works better now as I've split the opening sentence into two and noted where adelaide is.
  • Check WP:MOSNUM. I have a feeling numbers such as "50" should be in word form. A minor point, however.
    After reading the style manual on this I've made it consistent, using the words except in places like "expanding to 90 trams and 650 horses" where numerals and letters don't mix well
  • Could Kensington Gardens have it's own article? I'm not sure if Kensington Gardens (and John Stephenson Co., etc.) is a proper use of italics according to the manual of style. You may want to check usage of italics throughout the whole text.
    Changed the sentence about the gardens. Looking at a map it's never going to have it's own article although it will be mentioned eventually in the associated suburb's one. Fixed the italics, as I couldn't find anywhere they were used per the style manual I've taken them out
  • Great Depression should be capitalized.
    fixed
  • "Until purchased by the government, all horse tram operations were by private companies with the only government involvement the passing of legislation enabling line construction." Sentence doesn't flow too well. Could you rephrase?
    Now reads "Until 1907, all horse tram operations were by private companies, with the government passing legislation authorising line construction". The line as written was poor and contained redundant parts.
  • tax exempt -> tax-exempt. This might only occur once in the text.
    Fixed - only occurred once that I can find
  • Could you sum up what "turning of the sod" means? Also, it shouldn't be in italics.
    Changed this to "official ceremony starting track construction" and removed the italics. Turning of the sod was a common phrase for the ceremonial digging up the first bit of grass during a construction project, but it is probably not widely used.
  • Changes
  • There's some punctuation missing, especially before/after footnotes. I've caught the ones I've seen. Check reference positioning also.
    I think I've caught all of this now but will not strike this out until sure.
  • According to WP:MOSNUM, "fifty eight" -> "fifty-eight".
    fixed
  • "Open cross-bench trams with no weather protection on the side of the cars they became unpopular during inclement weather." This sentence doesn't make much sense to me, even after "placing" a comma in the middle of it.
    that line was awful ! Changed to "They were open trams, with no weather protection on the side of the cars, and passengers seated on cross-benches"
  • "Victoria square" -> "Victoria Square" surely?
    fixed
  • Off topic, but the pictures and diagrams would be useful on Wikimedia Commons; you could then add a {{commons}} link in the External Links section.

Hopefully that's enough for now :) Feel free to strike out comments you feel you've addressed. CloudNine 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed commentary !- I'll see what I can fix in the next day - Peripitus (Talk) 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Now fixed all except for rechecking punctuation and grammer errors, thanks for the quality input - Peripitus (Talk) 01:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long Island Rail Road

I'm working on improving this to featured status, and would like to know what it currently needs (besides sources for the [citation needed] tags). I have yet to expand the rolling stock section (I'm hoping someone with a focus on that can help), and also want to write about steamboat, trolley, and bus operations, and add a section about service patterns, with a focus on non-commuter services like the Sag Harbor-Greenport "Scoot" and the Cannonball. But the general layout is complete. --NE2 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are far too many red links. This has to be resolved, whether by creating stub articles for the links or by removing the links altogether. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Why should the status of other articles affect the quality of this article? --NE2 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
In my view the proliferation of redlinks suggests an overall case of overlinking. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
To me it simply suggests undercoverage in historical articles. --NE2 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (written in response to the post at WP:VPA, but I noticed this PR and thought this would be more appropriate)The article is at 68 kb right now. I take the 20-minute guideline at Wikipedia:Article size, which suggests a size of 30-35kb, pretty seriously when evaluating an article. Even if you recalculate the size without images and the many references, a technique which reminds me of how I used to change margins in reports, the size would still be a concern. We sometimes forget that readers may not be entranced by our writing and want to spend an hour out of their day on whatever subject. I would second the suggestion to split off enough of the article to bring it back within the suggested range, though you of course should be the one to decide what the core topics are. If you do decide to split off History of the Long Island Rail Road, you can always put your efforts towards making that the featured article. Though, playing devil's advocate, I should note that the history section by itself is already 48 kilobytes, indicating either a need for more splitting or a good, merciless copyedit to remove redundancy and streamline wording. Measures like starting Central Railroad of Long Island and collapsing the text into one paragraph will help as well. - BanyanTree 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I tried to keep only the overall history in the article, and histories of the other companies and branch lines in their own articles. The various competitors only have the basics necessary to understand how they fit in to the overall picture. --NE2 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Summary style could be a good compromise if the history section splits. Referencing needs to be more consistent throughout the article and the bullet list may be better if it's worked into paragraph form. Create stub articles for the many red links. Good work so far. DurovaCharge! 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If the history splits, I'll be taking the history article, not this one, to FAC. --NE2 10:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Without having read the above comments, here are my thoughts...

  • History section should be at the top.
  • The lead needs to be stronger, covering all the essentials, leading the reader into the history section with enough context.
  • History section is quite long, in proportion to the other sections; I suggest a subarticle on the History of the Long Island Rail Road and more of a summary here, per WP:SUMMARY.
  • Too many red links.
  • The first map (in the infobox) and the third map (in the history) need work... I think some of the key stations, such as the terminal stations should be marked and labelled on the map. Also, it's somewhat difficult for me to distinguish the "purple" and "red" colors on the map. Also, I would label the three states, the Long Island Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean to help orient readers that may not be familiar with the geography of the NYC region.
  • Also, there should be some historic images to accompany the history section. I found one Image:LIRR atlantic avenue station 1910.jpg in the Library of Congress catalog that satisfies copyright requirements here. The NYPL also has some material in digital format that may be of use, provided the copyright has expired. Surely there is more material out there...
  • References look good, except the "Freight service" section. --Aude (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I don't understand why red links are a problem; these are places where articles will exist, and they should be linked. I'll look into the NYPL images, but I don't think a historic photo of a specific terminal is useful in the general article. Do you have any more comments on the history? If I split that, I will be taking that subarticle to FAC. --NE2 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It might just be me, but red links pop out (eye catching) at me and make it more difficult to read through the text. A red link here or there is okay, but I think it's something people may object to in WP:FAC. I think short stub articles are fine. --Aude (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I started looking at the NYPL images, and they have the same problem as the other images I've found: they include the "created date" but not the date published, if published at all. The latter is needed to figure out copyright status. --NE2 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
A strategy that I sometimes use is to look through old books and publications available in libraries (public libraries like NYPL, universities, historical societies, ...). I have one book checked out now that was published in 1903. If you are in or near NYC and so inclined, the New York Historical Society's collection may include some useful items such as "Long Island illustrated" -- issued by the Passenger Department Long Island Railroad in 1903. Don't exactly know what it consists of, but might be useful. Historical society staff could probably advise you. Since it's the historical society, their materials are probably non-circulating, but they could provide a copy of a page or photograph. It might be too much effort, too inconvenient, or whatever... such efforts are definitely optional. --Aude (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to split off the history and not work on the main article, that's fine... but, the main article could probably use some details on things like fares (zone system? fare hikes?), safety and security, and expansion projects/proposals. (e.g. [1] [2] [3]) - I don't know how notable these details are and how worthy of mention, but some things I found. --Aude (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The passion that inspired you to expend the effort to write this page is lost among the details. If ridership is the LIRR's distinguishing characteristic, spend more time on that. No ridership comparisons with other systems are apparent. If history/age is the distinguishing characteristics, spend more time on that. The structure of an article on a Boston transit line, Red Line (MBTA), presents a useful structure for describing the history and infrastructure at once. Notable events might also bear mention; one that comes to mind is a terrible 1993 mass shooting. --Drtillberg 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SkyTrain (Vancouver)

It's on it way to becoming an FA. Is there any major details that the article lacks? Is there any bad prose? All comments are appreciated -- Selmo (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here a few quick minor details that could be fixed up. Using AndyZpeerreviewer.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), offence (B) (American: offense), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation).~ Joe Jklin (T C) 07:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thameslink Programme

I've already tagged a section that I think needs expansion, but nevertheless I would like to know what else this article needs in order to get to GA status. Ultimately I would like to get this article to FA status, but I'll settle for GA in the meantime and if that's successful then I'll seek advice on FA. All comments welcome. Edvid 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Update I've removed the last expansion tag. Edvid 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tips - I've done some minor editing and should start on Criterion 1a within the week. Edvid 19:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Docklands Light Railway

previous PR

[edit] Pennsylvania Railroad

I done some major work on this article and would like advice and comments. Looking to resubmit this artilce for Good Article Review. Thanks Shinerunner 17:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LuciferMorgan

  • Comment
  • Citations need formatting. Y Done
  • Trivia section needs zapping. Any worthwhile info must be integrated into the article, or ridden of.Y Done
  • External link farm needs pruning. Y Done
  • Verifiability needs to be improved, possibly through the use of citations. Y Done

LuciferMorgan 11:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'm starting to verify statements through alternate sources. Shinerunner 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] Y Done
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?] Y Done
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?] Y Done
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 miles, use 100 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100&nbsp;miles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?] Y Done
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings. Y Done
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid capitalizing words in section headings unless they are proper nouns or the first word of the heading.[?] Y Done
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] Y Done
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests on WikiProject Trains

[edit] Chemin de Fer des Côtes-du-Nord

The corresponding article on French Wikipedia has Featured Article status. I've created the English article borrowing heavily from that article, but also adding other material and a line diagram (French articles lack these). I'd like to get this to GA status initially, and maybe also to FA in the longer term. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rail transport in Victoria

I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially expanded, and believe it covers all relevant points of the subject. I have also referenced all relevant statements, and want to know if there is anything I have missed myself. (also at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rail transport in Victoria/archive1)

Wongm (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LYNX Rapid Transit Services

I would like a peer review of the LYNX article, particularly as it only has one major editor to date. I'd like it to reach Good Article status in the future. Any critiques or constructive criticisms would be greatly appreciated in helping expand and improve this article. Thanks! Patriarca12 04:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Railpage Australia

Need a critical review of all content in this article. Much of the article content references the source material (Railpage Australia), is not verifiable and is not to Wikipedia standards. For a non biased view I think it would be appropriate that a non-Australian resident rail enthusiast reviewed the article.Tezza1 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/SR West Country Class

[edit] Rail transport in Puerto Rico

I've researched for this article, but my experience is on History of Puerto Rico, nothing on trains. I was hoping that editors with experience in this subject would provide suggestions on how to improve it, with the intention of promoting it to FA someday. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 04:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German railway signalling

  • Language needs to be checked
  • What is unclear?
  • What is missing?

--GrafBrotula 16:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest more background information at the top of the article before you delve into specific signal descriptions. This would include perhaps a brief history, how it developed compared to other countries, and where the signals are used. n2xjk 00:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you do have Wikilinks, so I removed that comment. n2xjk 15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Basic history has been added, with many gaps as lack of exact timeline and proofs

On the way are information about

  • differences between train movements and shunting movements
  • differences between main and secondary lines
  • differences between stations and "free" lines
  • signales failures and countermeasures

--GrafBrotula 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trams in Europe

I have done a huge edit to the whole article reorganizing it and adding links to articles and moving the information over to what should be the main page where possible. Most countries now have a main article (which is often just a mirror of whats on here but that should change in time). i relies this article has no references and hopefully that will be something that will be fix in the future. So what do you think needs improving? L blue l 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rapid transit

I think this article has the potential to become a FA one day. "Characteristics and nomenclature" I think should be merged into another section. More citations also need to be introduced. Is there anything this article is missing? -- Selmo (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Peer review/Rapid transit/archive1. -- Selmo (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There's been steady improvement on this one, but it could still be better. Specifically (numbered for clarity in subsequent discussions; items needed for GA are marked with [GA]):
    1. [GA] There are still a couple of [citation needed] statements left in the article that need to be addressed.
    2. [GA] The lead section needs a bit of fleshing-out to better summarize the article's content.
    3. Out of 31 footnotes, there are only four that point to printed editions of books. This ratio needs to be worked on to increase the number of printed references.
    4. The History section seems disproportionately short, especially when compared to the Uses and developments section.
    5. The images are all of current operations and equipment. With the long history of systems like London Underground, Paris Métro and New York City Subway among others, we should be able to include images of older systems for the history discussion.
    6. The Technology section could also do with a little expansion, mentioning topics such as automated peoplemover systems, automated fare collection (a few systems are moving to RFID enabled equipment; maybe even mention the transition from tokens to fare cards) and safety (platform doors are only discussed in an image caption).
    7. We could probably get away with a bit of judicious pruning in both the See also and External links sections, leaving most of them for the subarticles that are already linked in the text and in Main article links.
  • I'll try to find some time this week to look through some of my own resources to see what can be added as well. Slambo (Speak) 15:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Selmo (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It might need more about the origins of the term, though that's mainly for history of rapid transit. Specifically, the term was used beginning in 1877 for small steam trains on the Atlantic Branch that are more similar to modern streetcars or light rail. --NE2 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McKinney Avenue Transit Authority

I would like a peer review of the MATA article. I'd like it to reach Good Article or Featured Article status in the future. I'm a volunteer motorman on the system and have made significant contributions to the article. n2xjk 21:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)