Talk:West Somerset Mineral Railway/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 13:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have read through the article, and agree that it is about ready for GA. I will work through it, making notes as I go, and leaving the lead until the end. Can I suggest that you record any actions taken to address any issues raised with comments and possibly the ✅ template. I am not in favour of striking out the text, as it makes it much more difficult to read at a later date, and it forms an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Origins

 * All good


 * Comberow incline
 * two 18 feet (5.5 m) diameter winding drums needs the adj=on switch, so it appears as "two 18-foot (5.5m) diameter drums".
 * adj=on added.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest linking culm to Culm (coal), as it is not a well-known term.
 * wikilinked.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Watchet Harbour
 * they built a new east pier and rebuilt the west pier. Presumably the west pier was the original, practically unusable one. Can this be clarified?
 * I have added west pier to the previous sentance to clarify - yes the west pier was in a state of disrepair before the railway line was built.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Extensions beyond the head of the incline
 * The terms of this lease meant that "the railway company was to receive a net sum of £5,575 every year until Michaelmas 1919, an agreement which was to prove much to its advantage". Do we need all of this to be double-quoted, or should the double quotes end at Michaelmas 1919? The first bit appears to be a condition of the lease, but the second is a comment on those conditions.
 * Quote marks moved.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Passenger operation

 * The 1895 Bradshaw needs expanding a little. Suggest "The 1895 Bradshaw Railway Guide" or somesuch, with a link to "Bradshaw's Guide".
 * Done.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Decline and closure
 * no nineteenth century iron mine on the Brendons was profitable Should be Brendon Hills.
 * Changed.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A second-hand Robey steam engine Was this a traction engine / stationary engine? Might be worth mentioning that Robey were based in Lincoln, as there is no article to link to.
 * I don't have a copy of the Oakley book this is referenced to (User:DavidAHull may be able to help), but this site says "When the mines closed in 1883 the weight of the ore had to be replaced with a semi portable Robey steam engine that was installed in the west side of the Winding House to operate the winding drums." so we could add "semi-portable" but I'm not totally sure what this means?&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added an external link to an article about Robey of Lincoln and found a wikipedia link to semi-portable, which I've linked.DavidAHull (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * At Colton they were pushed to the 2 ft gauge tracks... This sentence seems to ramble on, and has too many "thens" linking it together. Suggest splitting and some rewording.
 * I've tried to split the sentence and reword a bit but some further editing for clarity may be useful.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Locomotives
 * The upper level had two sheds which covered different periods, they were both known as "Brendon Hill" Needs a semicolon instead of the comma, or "...periods, which were..."
 * Semicolon added.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The second shed also had a single "road", it was located south Same issue. Suggest "...road, and was located..."
 * Changed.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * two small locomotives, both of which faced east to west. Suggest it would be easier to understand if they "faced the main line at Brendon Hill", or somesuch.
 * Changed.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Remains of the line
 * The former station at Watchet is in use today (2002) as flats 2002 is 15 years ago, so I am not sure it counts as today. Suggest "had been converted into flats by 2002" or somesuch.
 * Changed without specifying a date.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The line continued west to Gupworthy with modest earthworks, and bridge abutments which can be seen where minor roads cross the alignment. This doesn't quite read right. Is it just the bridge abutments that can be seen, or can the modest earthworks also be seen? Suggest "The line continued west to Gupworthy, with the modest earthworks and some bridge abutments, where minor roads cross the alignment, still visible" or somesuch.
 * Changed.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Overall, an interesting and well written article, with just a few minor tweaks required. I will move on to checking the refs next. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead acts as a good introduction and summary of the article, and is of a suitable length.


 * re-opened and a 2 ft (610 mm) extension was added Suggest "a 2 ft (610 mm) gauge extension", or it reads like the railway was extended by 2 ft.
 * "gauge" added.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The formal bit

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I will not be available for the next 3 days, but will check back in due course to see how things are going. I have not put the article on hold yet, and will only do so if there is no movement. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your comments. I hope I have addressed the majority of them but there are a couple of books I don't have and I'm hoping User:DavidAHull can help. If not I will need to get from a library via Inter Library Loan which may take some time.&mdash; Rod talk 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Bob1960evens for the review and to Rodw for addressing the comments. The outstanding ones appear to be refs to Oakley and Bodman. Alas, I've never seen either. Please get back to me if there's anything else I can try to contribute to. Dave DavidAHull (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am happy that all issues have now been resolved, and so am awarding it good article status. Congratulations on an interesting and well-written article. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have obtained a copy of the 1921 Railway Magazine article. It is a nicely written summary, the only thing I could find in it to add concerned the signalling, about which I have written a new paragraph. The article contains an interesting photo of a disc and crossbar signal at a level crossing. All other photos are ones already elsewhere or a version of the classic look up the incline, but with more grass. I have enjoyed working on this with you Rodw, I hope our paths cross again. Thank you Bob1960evens for your constructive and efficient reviewing. DavidAHull (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)