Wikipedia:Peer review/List of stations and halts on the Talyllyn Railway/archive1

List of stations and halts on the Talyllyn 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 June 2008.
 * 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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to try and get it to FL status. All comments welcome!

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I remember peer reviewing the article about the Railway when this was still part of the article. I think it is fairly close to FLC, but here are some suggestions to improve it further: Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is nice - I note the last two sentences are fairly short and could perhaps be combined to flow better.
 * I would be consistent on the use of decimals in measured units - for example the lead says the railway is 7¼ miles (11.8 km) long from Twyn to Nant Gewrnol, but the list gives decimals for both miles and kilometres, and to two decimal places. It says the line is 7.35 miles, 28 chains, (11.83 km) long. I would prefer that all measured units be given in decimals and to the same number of decinal places (so the lead would say the line is 7.35 miles (11.83 km) long). I also note that 7.35 miles is 0.1 miles (528 feet) longer that seven and a quarter miles, so the fraction is less accurate. Even seven and a third miles would be off by 0.02 miles, or over 100 feet.
 * While we're at it, I do not understand the use of chains as a unit of length. This needs to be explained in a note or in the lead and also wikilinked.
 * The elevations above sea level use ½ feet - I would use 0.5 feet.
 * The rest of the table is great - nice pictures, concise descriptions, consistently formatted.
 * The references are the biggest obstacle to FL
 * Ref 1 is an internet ref but does not include publisher, date accessed, date if known, etc. cite web may be useful here.
 * Book refs need more books in the Bibliography - no idea what the books by Potter, Mitchell and Eyres, Rolt, Thomas are, as they are missing from the Bib.

Second look (I still do not understand the use of chains here) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I noted the distance in the FAC for Talyllyn Railway and 7.25 miles is the correct length.
 * I also note the missing book refs seem to be in the Talyllyn Railway article.
 * I've fixed the issues with the references and will address the other points later today or tomorrow............ ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FLC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Bear in mind that FAC and FLC might have differing requirements about where to put citations, but the reliability of sourcing should stay the same between the two processes.) Sourcing looks pretty good.
 * 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.) 23:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All points above now addressed, I believe ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)