Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester and Bolton Railway/archive1

Manchester and Bolton 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 October 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 October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would appreciate constructive feedback on where to go next. I'd like to take it to GA status, its a fairly narrow subject so I don't anticipate much interest from other editors, as specific knowledge is required on this subject.

Any comments on grammar, referencing, layout, content - much appreciated.

Thanks, Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should be more than one paragraph per WP:LEAD. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * - Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Refs are usually in numerical order, so fix ... to become the "Company of Proprietors of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Navigation and Railway Company".[3][2]
 * - Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am confused - how did the first Act of Parliament not allow them to build a rail line so that In 1832 this company obtained an Act that allowed it to build the railway.[4]?? This needs to be clarified.
 * - Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Another confusing passage  A difficult section of the railway was the two tunnels at Farnworth. Each single-bore, and 295 yards (270 m) long, the bore on the down line is slightly larger than on the up line - a feature that remains to this day.[9] Difficult in what sense (presumably to construct)? Are there dimensions of the two bores (so the reader can learn the size of each)? Presumably these were drilled / excavated by hand - wouldn't it be usual for them not be exactly the same size? I am also not clear what would be down vs. up on such a line - towards Farnworth or away? Down is downhill presumably?
 * - Difficult in that tunnelling at that time in history was labour intensive, and probably quite dangerous. I would hope the reader would infer this from the era the railway was constructed in.  No explanation is given for the tunnel bores, so I cannot expand on that.  Its just a curious feature.  I have inserted wikilinks to up and down lines. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * - I have now expanded upon this. I plan to go into more detail when I find better sources. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several one or two sentence paragraphs and a few very short sections that break up the flow of the article. I would combine these with others or perhaps expand them. Does "Services" really need its own two sentence section? Could this be part of Fares and services?
 * - Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Needs a reference: On 11 June 1838, a new pricing structure was introduced, with first class costing 2s, 1s 6d, and 1s. Passenger's tickets were taken while travelling, presumably by a ticket inspector. Presumably sounds like the dreaded WP:NOR
 * - I'll have to get back to you on that reference (could take a while as I would need to revisit the library which is quite far away), I have removed the ticket inspector line. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * - Found the reference and moved it - it now encompasses the paragraph, since all that info is on the same page of the source material. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are the company's lines still in use today (sounds like it from the tunnel quote). Could a photo of the tunnels be included?
 * - That's a good idea, I cycle there regularly so will try and get a shot of the northern end. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * - There's an image here but it isn't great. You can see the difference in sizes though.  I'll get a much better photo than that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is pretty close to GA. Would definitely need a copyedit for FA.
 * - Ok, let me know what you think of the changes and if you're happy, once this review is closed I'll ask for it to be copyedited. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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; 04:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * - Extremely helpful thanks :) Considering I only created it to help get the canal article to FA I think its quite heart warming that someone else considers it a possible GA :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)