Talk:Don Valley Railway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Don Valley Railway is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's assessment scale. Please provide a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-Priority on the Project's priority scale. | |
[edit] Cleanup tag notification
I have affixed the {{Cleanup-date}} tag on the Don Valley Railway article due to its writing. Indeed the article's current state revolves more around propaganda than encyclopedic content and requires a rewrite. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edited Article and Move Suggestion
I have extensively edited the article with the intention of presenting it more as a set of facts and less 'biased'. I beleive it should also be moved and listed under the project name to which it refers.
23:52, November 13 2006 - Edited by Kipper.
[edit] Backing (+some general comments)
I have removed the 'Backing' section. There are two reasons for this. First, in my opinion this is not very encyclopaedic content. Second, the actual commitment given by any of the named backers is unclear at best... Codecraft appear to just be the DVR's web provider. The city council's backing is referenced to the Telegraph article, but all that that article shows is that the reporter contacted an unnamed spokesman who said that the DVR seemed like a good idea—this is a long way from actual council backing for the project. The commitment given to the project by SYPTE (if any) is unstated. Angela Smith's backing is referenced to the Telegraph article—maybe I am being blind, but I can't find a single mention of her in that article.
In general I would advise caution on what is reported here. The DVR website talks up the project a lot—this is exactly what you would expect as that is the purpose of such a website, but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia. There is actually very little concrete information given about the DVR project, and it appears (from its website) to be a proposal that is at a very early stage of development. Whether Wikipedia should even have an article on such an early stage proposal is debatable (I doubt that this article would survive an AfD), but if there is to be an article it should certainly cut through the propaganda and just report the details of the proposal—always remembering that it is just that, a proposal, and one of at least three current proposals to reuse this line. —JeremyA 01:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, fine. Thankyou for some constructive feedback. It is rare to find one who reverts/removes my contributions and has the common courtesy of a) explaining why (so I may become a better wikipedian) and b) doing so for some purpose other than goad me into starting slagging matches/edit wars. (Additionally, of the four proposals to reuse this line, three of them have a wikipedia article, so I do not feel DVR article is unwarranted). L.J.Skinnersomething to say? 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC).
