Talk:Trent Valley Line
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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) | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
|
 |
Trent Valley Line was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Trent Valley Line. |
I was not aware until today that a four line stub article had been written for the Trent Valley Line. The Trent Valley line is a section of the West Coast Main Line (and has been for over 150 years) with almost all the trough traffic between Rugby and Stafford and by common consent the line through Birmingham with little through traffic is the heavily used West Midlands branch. I do not see any need for a Trent Valley article. That part of the through route is in any case at present far far better covered in the West Coast Main Line article. What do others think? NoelWalley 13:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect the discovery was triggered by the labels'n'links I added. However (to make that clear), my interest in the article is only as a fit subject for cleanup; I have no opinion on whether or not to merge it into WCML. --Alvestrand 14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Given the amount of engineering work occurring on the line at present, I think it is deserving of its own article. I think the subject was covered in detail in a recent edition of Railway Mag - if I can get hold of a copy I'll knock up some information about it. Also, it would be useful to break down the WCML into sections, and leave the WCML article as an overview, to prevent it getting too large. I think that a lot of these Line articles suffer from being too detailed about the route, places served, etc, and not enough on history. I'll try to remedy this. — Tivedshambo (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree with the above, all UK main lines are just a collection of local lines bolted together by different rial companies over a hundred years ago to make one service. Pickle 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
-
Contents |
[edit] Overly-complex map
When I put the new schematic in the article (the red map), I intended it to be showing only existing stations and/or junctions. I feel that the map is way too complicated right now and it's hard to read. Do we really need the closed lines and all the rivers? It seems superfluous to me. Geoking66 01:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:TRAIL is fairly new, imported (i think) from the German Wikipedia. We haven't developed any standards for the template yet (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL). The only guideline we've so far agreed upon is that the very big mainlines (eg WCML, ECML, etc) would be left simplified (as the template is used on all station pages), with scope to add the complex template latter (this is only about 2 weeks old!). Some of the imported German stuff (eg Linke Rheinstrecke) has copious detail. IMHO perhaps some of the rivers and canals I put into this template is going over the top, as the Trent valley is littered with them, but on the other hand user may find this useful information. I think old railway lines and good sidings are very useful, for example the Scottish contingent have been very active in detailing their closed/defunct lines and it allows an excellent opportunity for them to be linked in. It is also somewhat limited by the icon available, as you can't junction off a HSTR. Thus i could live with losing some of the rivers/canals but i feel the closed lines/freight branches are vital. Pickle 10:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good article
[edit] Good Article NominationGood evening (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 21:24, Saturday June 14, 2008 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:
I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congratulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work! Kindest regards, |
- I've only two real points a) lack of inline citation (not all editors go for them, but the two cited aren't directly linked in) and b) lack of historical focus ie past lines and branches (several well done "line" articles cover this well Pickle 10:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:GA/R Good Article Review requested.
I am formally beginning a Good Article Review to see about removing this article from the GA list. It does not appear to meet the Good Article criteria found at WP:WIAGA for the following reasons:
- Lead does not adequately summarize the article (see WP:LEAD). Also makes inappropriate use of a bullet list. The lead needs to be expanded so the entire article is summarized, and the list needs to be converted to prose.
- The article is inadequately referecned. For an article of this length, one would expect use of inline citations per WP:CITE in either footnote or parenthetical style. Without any way to fact check the various claims this article makes, it is inadequately referenced.
- The article is not adequately broad. The text of the article simply covers the history and a current improvement project. There is no treatment given to any other facet of this rail line.
Please make any comments at WP:GA/R as you see fit. If the article can be improved to bring it up to standard, please do so ASAP, otherwise, pending a discussion at WP:GA/R, it may be delisted from the GA list. If you have any questions, please drop a line at my talk page.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
