Wikipedia:Peer review/Anglesey Central Railway/archive1

Anglesey Central Railway

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

This article, to which I have contributed significantly, made GA grade seven months ago. Since then, I've ignored it for some time, which enabled me to come back with fresh eyes and make further improvements, and I'm eyeing up the FA process. Before I go there (this is my first time!) I'd like to ask for an 'outside' opinion on what is missing, needs doing, or ought to be improved.

Thanks, Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * What makes http://www.igg.org.uk/gansg/12-linind/chem.htm a reliable source? It's lacking a publisher also.
 * What makes http://2d53.co.uk/index.htm a reliable source? (also lacking a publisher when its used)
 * What makes http://www.sixbellsjunction.co.uk a reliable source?
 * What makes http://www.penmorfa.com/Archive/index.htm a reliable source? (Lacks a publisher when used also)
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A comprehensive article with some good points, but not yet ready for FAC.
 * The lead is not adequate as a summary of the whole article, and needs to be expanded.
 * The prose, while readable, is rough in places. Examples: "by the now Major Rich"; "it opened to passengers throughout on 3 June"; "switched from exporting ore by sea to by railway". There are other poor constructions, and some unencyclopedic language, such as "known to this day". It really needs a competent copyeditor to go through the whole text, but I would advise you to wait for this until after other amendments have been carried out.
 * There are some gaps in the chronology. For example, "Early days" records various failed attempts to start the line, then suddenly it's up and away. How did that come about? Later, there is no mention of nationalisation, apart from the unexplained "Under British Rail..." Some readers, particularly non-UK readers, will have no idea what "British Rail" means, unless you explain.
 * Check for overlinking; terms like "railway" don't need linking
 * Some sections of the article have too much small detail. Examples are in the paragraphs dealing freight prices, timetable information, and in particular the 3rd and 4th paragaphs of the 1923-46 section. This information could be much more briefly summarised.
 * Some of the prose is too technical for the general reader. Terms such as "type A or B staff" need proper explanation. The wikilink on "staff" I found unhelpful. Sentences like  "The Gaerwen-Llangefni staff section was replaced with Gaerwen-Holland Arms and Holland Arms-Llangefni sections, but the single line to Red Wharf Bay was operated as one section" are very difficult to fathom if one is not familar with the subject.
 * MOS etc: there are numerous nbsp violations; the convert template should be used throughout (in the first line of the article it isn't); the section heading "The railway reaches Amlwych" is contrary to approved heading style.
 * Thec "Route" section has no citations. Where did it come from?
 * Image:Anglesey Central Railway map.png - it would help if the main Chester to Holyhead route was clearly indicated.
 * It would also help if modern-day equivalents were given for some (not all) of the cost figures. The MeasuringWorth.com website can be used for this purpose.
 * I'm afraid I don't understand (3928 t). What does it mean?
 * Is "Dickson" a company or an individual? Is it/he the same as "Dickson and Russell"? if so, what happened to Russell?
 * "Act" as in "Act of Parliament" needs a capital. I've fixed some but there may be others.
 * I enjoyed looking at the illustrations.

Clearly, much effort has gone into this article, but it needs quite a bit more if it is to reach featured standard. I hope that these comments will help you get started with the necessary work. You will also need to address the points raised above, re reliable sourcing. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)