Talk:Fourth Railway Package

Bias
The author seems to be biased towards more competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:2808:5B00:5AB0:35FF:FE81:3641 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, I haven't an alternative so have just added tags to highlight the issue.
 * (Specifically - "this is expected to be faster and cheaper" is unsourced; "they have repeatedly resisted attempts to separate the two parts of the business, which would allow more competition" is NPOV/unsourced.
 * Basically the whole article needs a rewrite, including alternate viewpoints. Harshmustard (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about your attempts to move the article away from what sources say, in the name of "neutrality". Which bit of WP:NPOV recommends that we should set aside what sources say if they conflict with our personal opinions? bobrayner (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources seem to be opinion pieces (at least #2, "an impassioned plea" by Lord Berkeley). Not what WP looks for as a reliable source. Others would disagree that these are "improvements", which is why I went for the more neutral "changes" etc. This http://www.economist.com/news/business/21565982-plans-liberalise-europes-rail-services-run-opposition-uncoupling-trains is a more neutral article on the topic that covers the downsides, for instance Britain's mess of privatisation. I haven't thoroughly researched this further but the article as it stands screams POV Harshmustard (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Images legend
The images are coloured but they don't have a legend.