Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project navigation bar talk
Project participants talk
Project banner (doc) {{TWP}} talk
Project category talk
Manual of style (WP:TWP/MOS) talk
Welcome message talk
Departments
Assessments (WP:TWP/A) talk
Peer review (WP:TWP/PR) talk
To do list talk
New article notes talk
Task forces
Article maintenance talk
By country series talk
Categories talk
Images talk
Locomotives talk
Maps talk
Models talk
Monorails talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk
edit · changes

The peer review department of the Trains WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Trains WikiProject. While there is a general intent to expand this process to allow for review by subject experts, the preparations for this are not yet complete.

Contents

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

  1. Add pr=yes to the {{TrainsWikiProject}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article. If a peer review has been made in the past, move the existing page to another name such as [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/Name of nominated article, old review]], then start the new page in the original name and provide a link to the new archive page you just created.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace pr=yes with oldpr=yes in the {{TrainsWikiProject}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.

[edit] Requests on Wikipedia:Peer review

[edit] Trams in Adelaide

Currently listed as a Good article but needs other sets of eyes to look over it, particularly as it only has one major editor to date. I'm working this towards FA and need advice on what is wrong or missing - Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long Island Rail Road

I'm working on improving this to featured status, and would like to know what it currently needs (besides sources for the [citation needed] tags). I have yet to expand the rolling stock section (I'm hoping someone with a focus on that can help), and also want to write about steamboat, trolley, and bus operations, and add a section about service patterns, with a focus on non-commuter services like the Sag Harbor-Greenport "Scoot" and the Cannonball. But the general layout is complete. --NE2 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are far too many red links. This has to be resolved, whether by creating stub articles for the links or by removing the links altogether. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 01:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Why should the status of other articles affect the quality of this article? --NE2 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
In my view the proliferation of redlinks suggests an overall case of overlinking. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
To me it simply suggests undercoverage in historical articles. --NE2 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (written in response to the post at WP:VPA, but I noticed this PR and thought this would be more appropriate)The article is at 68 kb right now. I take the 20-minute guideline at Wikipedia:Article size, which suggests a size of 30-35kb, pretty seriously when evaluating an article. Even if you recalculate the size without images and the many references, a technique which reminds me of how I used to change margins in reports, the size would still be a concern. We sometimes forget that readers may not be entranced by our writing and want to spend an hour out of their day on whatever subject. I would second the suggestion to split off enough of the article to bring it back within the suggested range, though you of course should be the one to decide what the core topics are. If you do decide to split off History of the Long Island Rail Road, you can always put your efforts towards making that the featured article. Though, playing devil's advocate, I should note that the history section by itself is already 48 kilobytes, indicating either a need for more splitting or a good, merciless copyedit to remove redundancy and streamline wording. Measures like starting Central Railroad of Long Island and collapsing the text into one paragraph will help as well. - BanyanTree 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I tried to keep only the overall history in the article, and histories of the other companies and branch lines in their own articles. The various competitors only have the basics necessary to understand how they fit in to the overall picture. --NE2 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Summary style could be a good compromise if the history section splits. Referencing needs to be more consistent throughout the article and the bullet list may be better if it's worked into paragraph form. Create stub articles for the many red links. Good work so far. DurovaCharge! 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If the history splits, I'll be taking the history article, not this one, to FAC. --NE2 10:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Without having read the above comments, here are my thoughts...

  • History section should be at the top.
  • The lead needs to be stronger, covering all the essentials, leading the reader into the history section with enough context.
  • History section is quite long, in proportion to the other sections; I suggest a subarticle on the History of the Long Island Rail Road and more of a summary here, per WP:SUMMARY.
  • Too many red links.
  • The first map (in the infobox) and the third map (in the history) need work... I think some of the key stations, such as the terminal stations should be marked and labelled on the map. Also, it's somewhat difficult for me to distinguish the "purple" and "red" colors on the map. Also, I would label the three states, the Long Island Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean to help orient readers that may not be familiar with the geography of the NYC region.
  • Also, there should be some historic images to accompany the history section. I found one Image:LIRR atlantic avenue station 1910.jpg in the Library of Congress catalog that satisfies copyright requirements here. The NYPL also has some material in digital format that may be of use, provided the copyright has expired. Surely there is more material out there...
  • References look good, except the "Freight service" section. --Aude (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I don't understand why red links are a problem; these are places where articles will exist, and they should be linked. I'll look into the NYPL images, but I don't think a historic photo of a specific terminal is useful in the general article. Do you have any more comments on the history? If I split that, I will be taking that subarticle to FAC. --NE2 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It might just be me, but red links pop out (eye catching) at me and make it more difficult to read through the text. A red link here or there is okay, but I think it's something people may object to in WP:FAC. I think short stub articles are fine. --Aude (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I started looking at the NYPL images, and they have the same problem as the other images I've found: they include the "created date" but not the date published, if published at all. The latter is needed to figure out copyright status. --NE2 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
A strategy that I sometimes use is to look through old books and publications available in libraries (public libraries like NYPL, universities, historical societies, ...). I have one book checked out now that was published in 1903. If you are in or near NYC and so inclined, the New York Historical Society's collection may include some useful items such as "Long Island illustrated" -- issued by the Passenger Department Long Island Railroad in 1903. Don't exactly know what it consists of, but might be useful. Historical society staff could probably advise you. Since it's the historical society, their materials are probably non-circulating, but they could provide a copy of a page or photograph. It might be too much effort, too inconvenient, or whatever... such efforts are definitely optional. --Aude (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to split off the history and not work on the main article, that's fine... but, the main article could probably use some details on things like fares (zone system? fare hikes?), safety and security, and expansion projects/proposals. (e.g. [1] [2] [3]) - I don't know how notable these details are and how worthy of mention, but some things I found. --Aude (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SkyTrain (Vancouver)

It's on it way to becoming an FA. Is there any major details that the article lacks? Is there any bad prose? All comments are appreciated -- Selmo (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here a few quick minor details that could be fixed up. Using AndyZpeerreviewer.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), offence (B) (American: offense), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation).~ Joe Jklin (T C) 07:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thameslink Programme

I've already tagged a section that I think needs expansion, but nevertheless I would like to know what else this article needs in order to get to GA status. Ultimately I would like to get this article to FA status, but I'll settle for GA in the meantime and if that's successful then I'll seek advice on FA. All comments welcome. Edvid 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Update I've removed the last expansion tag. Edvid 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tips - I've done some minor editing and should start on Criterion 1a within the week. Edvid 19:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Docklands Light Railway

A lot of the jobs have been completed since the last peer review about 2 months ago. Is this too early to request another review? Simply south 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive of old Peer Review found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Docklands Light Railway/archive1.

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As a resident of Docklands who is a regular user of the DLR (but won't let that cloud his judgement), here's some comments:
    • Intro should mention when the initial system opened.
    • "The DLR system is undergoing constant expansion, with 38 stations currently on the system." - stubby paragraph and could be expanded; you could also include a description of the DLR's topgraphy (roughly five-pointed star centred on Poplar/Canning Town) and the areas served in the intro.
    • "The DLR was conceived in the late 1980s" - I'm not so sure this is true - I thought it was late 70s/early 80s, and is contradicted by the claim the original plan was scuppered by the Thatcher government coming to power. Wasn't the original plan to extend the Jubilee Line eastwards?
    • The "First System" section should detail the original railway layout actually chosen i.e. Tower Gateway/Stratford to Island Gardens (I think...) and initial number of stations.
    • "..the Tower Gateway terminus, situated at the very edge of the City of London, attracted criticism for its poor connections." - undoubtedly true, but this needs a quote and reference by a citable source.
    • "leaving Tower Gateway station on a limb." - no it doesn't, it leaves the line between Shadwell and the Tower
    • Completion of Canary Wharf needs a date.
    • Should mention the George V branch also replaces the North London Line to N Woolwich.
    • "Many DLR stations are elevated" - give us an exact number...
    • "The DLR is used by up to a hundred thousand people daily, with around 60 million journeys yearly." - needs citation
      • Additional: A history of passenger numbers over time, accounting for the increase in use, would be highly informative.
    • Future development section could be split off into a new section. Drop some of the more minor (e.g. Shadwell) or fanciful (e.g. Charing Cross/Catford extensions) plans from this main article.
    • After looking at the featured article London Underground, I would expect more on: the ownership of the DLR and how it is financed; the safety record of the line and any past incidents; design & colour scheme (didn't it used to be blue, not turquoise?); cultural, social and historical significance of the DLR (not so easy so only do this if you can cite sources). Also some general references and further reading would be good to put at the bottom of the article.
    • External links could probably be a bit beefier and be organised under sections: e.g. Official sites, History sites, Map & Geodata sites. Qwghlm 01:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests on WikiProject Trains

[edit] German railway signalling

  • Language needs to be checked
  • What is unclear?
  • What is missing?

--GrafBrotula 16:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest more background information at the top of the article before you delve into specific signal descriptions. This would include perhaps a brief history, how it developed compared to other countries, and where the signals are used. n2xjk 00:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you do have Wikilinks, so I removed that comment. n2xjk 15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trams in Europe

I have done a huge edit to the whole article reorganizing it and adding links to articles and moving the information over to what should be the main page where possible. Most countries now have a main article (which is often just a mirror of whats on here but that should change in time). i relies this article has no references and hopefully that will be something that will be fix in the future. So what do you think needs improving? L blue l 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rapid transit

I think this article has the potential to become a FA one day. "Characteristics and nomenclature" I think should be merged into another section. More citations also need to be introduced. Is there anything this article is missing? -- Selmo (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Peer review/Rapid transit. -- Selmo (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There's been steady improvement on this one, but it could still be better. Specifically (numbered for clarity in subsequent discussions; items needed for GA are marked with [GA]):
    1. [GA] There are still a couple of [citation needed] statements left in the article that need to be addressed.
    2. [GA] The lead section needs a bit of fleshing-out to better summarize the article's content.
    3. Out of 31 footnotes, there are only four that point to printed editions of books. This ratio needs to be worked on to increase the number of printed references.
    4. The History section seems disproportionately short, especially when compared to the Uses and developments section.
    5. The images are all of current operations and equipment. With the long history of systems like London Underground, Paris Métro and New York City Subway among others, we should be able to include images of older systems for the history discussion.
    6. The Technology section could also do with a little expansion, mentioning topics such as automated peoplemover systems, automated fare collection (a few systems are moving to RFID enabled equipment; maybe even mention the transition from tokens to fare cards) and safety (platform doors are only discussed in an image caption).
    7. We could probably get away with a bit of judicious pruning in both the See also and External links sections, leaving most of them for the subarticles that are already linked in the text and in Main article links.
  • I'll try to find some time this week to look through some of my own resources to see what can be added as well. Slambo (Speak) 15:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Selmo (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It might need more about the origins of the term, though that's mainly for history of rapid transit. Specifically, the term was used beginning in 1877 for small steam trains on the Atlantic Branch that are more similar to modern streetcars or light rail. --NE2 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McKinney Avenue Transit Authority

I would like a peer review of the MATA article. I'd like it to reach Good Article or Featured Article status in the future. I'm a volunteer motorman on the system and have made significant contributions to the article. n2xjk 21:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Trains_Peer_review_9222.html"