Wikipedia:Peer review/Docklands Light Railway/archive1

Docklands Light Railway
A lot of unverifiable work has now been removed etc, not by me much. I was hoping to ask how else this could be improved in order to reach Good Article status. Also, does the Future section present any problems? Simply south 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hope this helps, BillC 22:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Some comments:
 * The prose in the lead is a little choppy and could do with tightening, as the sentences there are rather short: "The DLR system is undergoing constant expansion. There are also almost 40 stations on the system."
 * Some questions it might be useful to answer in the article: What voltage is the power supply? How did the corporation acquire the land to build track and stations upon? Is it profitable? How many passengers use it daily? Has it received praise or condemnation from various groups? Any similar systems elsewhere?

Let me know if you have any further questions.MLilburne 17:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My comments:
 * I suspect that the GA reviewers will want to see more citations; one per paragraph for the body of the article is a good rule to aim for. It seems that most of the sources that you're using are produced by the DLR itself. Are there any outside sources, books, newspaper articles that you might be able to cite? I agree with BillC that it would be very helpful to have some information about how the public and outside commentators felt about the DLR. Was there any controversy about its construction? I know there was quite a bit of controversy about the Docklands project generally.
 * A source that I just found, which you might want to take a look at: http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/transport/index.html
 * Personally I don't see a problem with the "future developments" section, but some GA reviewers might object to the list of stations in the middle of the article.


 * The list of stations is a bit controversial as it also is under List of London Underground stations. Even though the system is completely seperate, many things are shared with the LU and so it was decided that for these reasons, the stations should stay there. Simply south


 * Would it make sense to leave the stations in the LU list, but also to have a different list that consists of only DLR stations? Seems to me that would be a reasonable compromise. MLilburne 18:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)