Talk:Western Railway Corridor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
Selected	This article was displayed as the Portal:Trains "Selected article" for week 44, 2005.

A Wikipedian removed Western Railway Corridor from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}

This is an excellent addition to the railway section in west of Ireland. Its a great pity more use is not made of our extensive railroads. Well done Zoney! --File Éireann 10:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted good article

I have delisted this article. Sections have been added that are poorly written. It is illogical in structure, it contains wadges of rubbish quotes undifferentiated from the text of the article. It contains a ministerial statement in full containing some waffling evasive answer to a parliamentary question. In short, someone has broken this article. Curtains99 16:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we actually need these extensive quotations? Comparing what the article looked like as Zoney left it with what we have now, I think his version gives us much the same information -- but far more succinctly. -- llywrch 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be fine to link to an external document, I should think. Evertype 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

User:87.40.116.10 who is a new user has 3 times deleted paragraphs relating to the Irish Times criticisms of the WRC. These criticisms were made both in a leader article and in an opinion column by Frank McDonald. The comments are sourced and relevant and add to the neutrality of the article as most references from decent sources are pro-WRC. The articles in question provoked much comment both in letters to the editor, in the form of a rebuttal article printed in the same paper and in responses in other newspapers.

Following the 3 revert rule WP:3RR I am not going to revert this user's changes anymore but I would appreciate if someone else does before the article sinks again. Curtains99 17:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And so it continues with edits like this [1].

Curtains99 19:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Response from User:87.40.116.10

1. There is no intention to mislead or censor. The references given to the Irish Times were not accessible to the reader nor was the reference to the Sunday Business Post and PPPs, the relevance of which was unclear. Feel free to restore them if they can be read in full and also the rebuttal article.

2. The addition of referenced Dept. of Finance statistics can hardly be deemed to be biased in response to a statement such as: "Some also argue with the ASSUMPTION that the West is receiving less than its fair share of government spending." In fact the Department of Finance itself is now stating it as a fact, not an assumption.

3. I agree that the whole page appears overlong e.g. the intricate history of the railway itself. 87.40.116.10 09:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end.

I am going to answer your points one by one

1. I accept your assurances that you have no intention to mislead or censor. The question of what constitutes an acceptable source on a Wikipedia page is described in detail here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You will see from this that sources for Wikipedia articles may be printed matter such as books and newspapers or else online sources. The fact that a source is not online does not take away from its reliability. Also please note this section of the article: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Checking_references_may_require_some_effort, which states that checking sources may require some effort. You can see from this that the fact that the internet version of a source is only available by subscription does not take away from its acceptability or reliability. If you wish to check this source you can obtain the newspaper from the library or pay a subscription of €2 to read it online.

2. I can see where you are coming from but please understand that writing a Wikipedia article is not like other forms of writing. You are specifically not permitted to cite primary source material such as government statistics and then add your own analysis of that data - no matter how simple your own analysis is. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_definitions for details of which type of sources you may use and the distinction between primary and secondary sources. The policy and reasoning behind banning analysis of source data to make an argument is detailed here: WP:NOR. What you can do is list published sources of writers who have analysed this kind of data. For example, if you could find a newspaper article or an academic paper where an author analyses government data to conclude that the West of Ireland gets less or more than its fair share of spending then you could use that.

3. I am glad you agree that the page is getting too detailed with intricate history. Curtains99 23:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. I have attempted to shorten the historical overview, while retaining as much information as possible.

As regards the overall article, if it is perceived that a one-sided view is currently reflected, may I invite you to make whatever changes you feel are necessary to restore the neutral status of the article.

87.40.116.10 10:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PS I have now inserted the correct format User:87.40.116.10 in the discussion where applicable and managed to sign successfully! User:87.40.116.10

Thanks for being helpful. Curtains99 11:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

This article has been tagged for neutrality due to the systematic removal of all referenced criticisms of the subject matter and the addition of editor-written analysis of primary source material contrary to WP:OR and WP:RS

However, the Department of Finance Report for the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service issued in June 2006 entitled "Progress on the National Development Plan 2000-2006" shows: P20; 4.6 "In the Public Transport area €2.7 billion or 117% of forecast has been invested in the South and East region to the end of 2005," while on p24, 3.9 it states "In the Public Transport area €283 million has been directly invested in projects in the BMW region." Forecast expenditure was €448 million. This means that significantly less than the actual sum forecast was spent in the BMW, although 27% of the state's population reside there.

Please return the article to a neutral state and then remove the POV tag. Thanks, Curtains99 11:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)