Talk:Crowes railway station

Removal of updated content
I am not sure why my good-faith edit was reversed. I may not have referenced it correctly, but the information was correct. There is now very little information compared to what I added and some of it is again incorrect, i.e. it was opened in 1911, not 1910; it had three roads, not four lines (a line is a route, not a track); they weren't two-layered station buildings. It says this section needs expanding—I expanded it, but it's been removed! What is going on? Supt. of Printing (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:V. I might have marked your unsourced paragraphs as "citation needed" but when a citation is removed and replaced by unsourced content then it becomes "too hard" to work back.  From recall, and I haven't time to check the source, I think there were 3 lines a the station and a runt of a siding or something.  Someone should probably tell me I shouldn't WP:DONTBITETHENEWBIES (you may not be a newbie) but there needs to be better levels of verification.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When I first saw the changes before they were reverted, I had mixed feelings in that I believed the factual information was a big improvement but on the other hand the citation had deteriorated considerably. My choioce would be to have the improved facts as presented but with improved citation. Fleet Lists (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to be in that position as well. If those "facts" came from Anchen and Edwards and were cited as such there wouldn't be a problem.  It seem infeasible for me to get access to Edwards or Anchen.  But at present the "Facts" are "opinion" though some are probably citable from online sources either already at the article or possibly mentioned at the AfD.  Unlimited time would mean I would look further.  I haven't got that at the moment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I had done the right thing in citing published sources of Downs and Anchen, but couldn't link to online sources. Nevertheless, the current information is factually wrong, in fact it is even inconsistent with itself where the infobox says there were four tracks, whilst the station description says there were three (lines). The bottom line is, from my perspective, that what I wrote is sourced from these two authors (as well as my own knowledge of the history), but that doesn't seem good enough, so incorrect information is allowed to remain.Supt. of Printing (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If what you are saying is all the content you wrote was from these sources then it can be re-instated, albeit slightly differently referenced, and if this could be done to the page numbers that would be better. If you simply mention the page ranges here I can sort that out, or at least start to sort that out.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)