Jump to content

Talk:Elham Valley Railway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name

[edit]

The article "Elham valley railway" has been redirected here with all information. Spagus

probably (see MoS somewhere) be named "Elham Valley railway" Pickle 10:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, since it was an SER line rather than an independant company, "Elham Valley line" might make more ssnse. Pickle 10:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Instruction at Harbledown

[edit]

I've removed an instruction from Harbledown and given the label its own line as on Firefox anyway it was leaving gaps in the line above on the diagram. However my lack of local knowledge means I don't know which of the adjacent junctions is Harbledown so maybe someone who does know could wade in? Britmax (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I noticed this article had been moved some time this year. However, all the sources I have is that this railway was built and ran thoughout it's life as a 'heavy' railway. In the 'Lost Railways of Kent' Leslie Oppitz (quoting 'The Elham Valley Line by Brian Hart in places) states that although a Light Railway Act was passed in 1881, but because of the competition between the SER and the LCDR, the "...SER assumed ownership of the Elham Light Valley Co and agreed to build the line as double track and to the same standard as the existing track. Parliment approved the modified bill by an Act dated 1884..." i.e. from 1884 this line was not a 'light railway'. All the internet sources (listed below) refer to this line as the Elham Valley Railway.

http://www.elhamvalleylinetrust.org/1884-1947.htm
http://www.barham-kent.org.uk/Rail%20Services.htm (Repeats what I said above)
http://www.undergroundkent.co.uk/etchinghill_railway_tunnel.htm
http://www.elham.co.uk/Elham/Elham%20Valley%20Railway/Elham_Valley_Railway.htm
http://www.kenelks.co.uk/railways/elham.htm

I therefore propose that this article be moved back. Edgepedia (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Archive records can be found here [1]

"The Elham Valley Railway Company was incorporated under act of 18th July 1881. Under act of 28th July 1884, rights and powers of Elham Valley Railway Company were transferred to South Eastern Railway Company."

but also (and see first section here on the talk page) perhaps Elham Valley Line would be better. The reference book which seems to be the source for everyone is Elham Valley Line by Brian Hart Edgepedia (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed 'However if it was built as a light railway, under the Light Railways Act 1896, it could not be considered an integral part of the SER network.' The 1886 Act was passed nine years after the line was opened, so how was it relevant? Edgepedia (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Found it! The Act was the Railway Facilities Act of 1870. Edgepedia (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a lot of merit in your suggestion to move the article back to its original title of "Elham Valley Railway". Just looking through Brian Hart's book, the first proposal for the line surfaced in 1865, with the prospectus headed the "Elham Valley Light Railway Company" (the Various Powers Act 1884 gave permission to build the line). However, the references to "Light Railway" cease once the company is absorbed by the SER upon completion of the line. It's also worth mentioning that the other works on this line (Oppitz, Forwood & Edwards) don't use the term "light railway" either. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a week and we've got no other interest, so I've proposed the move. We need an admin to move it back over the redirect. Edgepedia (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elham Valley Railway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pkbwcgs (talk · contribs) 17:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I am going to pick up the review of this railway. I will aim to give out the result within seven days but if it is a straightforward review like one I did recently, I can give out the result quickly. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. The article is well-written and quite clear. An IP editor has also improved the spelling and grammar and the flow of the article by copyediting it.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The underlinking problem has now been fixed. I have no other issues for this criterion.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. The references are presented in a neat reflist. References are not randomly duplicated.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). The majority of sourcing is from books. As the books cited are reliable sources, the article passes this criterion. The few web sources used in the article are also reliable.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No copyright violations and no sentences have been copied and pasted.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article adheres to a neutral point of view. No problems with this criterion.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The article never had to be protected due to edit warring and is stable on a day-to-day basis.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All the images are related to the Elham Valley Railway and they all have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

@Ritchie333: Unfortunately, I am going to have to flag this up. There are only two references that cite the web and two other websites in the external links section and the rest of the references cite books. There has to be more references that cite the web as not everyone can access books. Please do tell me if this is not a problem but I feel that it is a problem if there are not enough references that cite the web. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elham Valley Railway#Legacy is underlinked which is a bit of problem in terms of navigation between articles. Ideally, I would want to see more bluelinks for that section. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elham Valley Railway#Closure has no links which is also a problem. Overall, the article is quite underlinked which is a problem. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold I would like to see the improvements that I have to suggested to be made before this review continues. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Closure" doesn't contain many terms that are linked earlier - otherwise "War Department", "Elham railway station", "Folkestone railway station" and "Lyminge railway station" would have links. I can link to shuttle train but tha'ts about it. For "Legacy" I can link Wincheap (the article is rubbish but I can fix that) and Bishopsbourne railway station could be a redlink (though I'm worried it would be a permastub). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"There has to be more references that cite the web as not everyone can access books." Per WP:SOURCEACCESS "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf" I believe I have seen several FACs from Brian Boulton that were entirely cited to books. It is particularly true for railway articles that much of the information necessary to write a good article is not online, that's just a plain old fact of life. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: As more links have been added, I will continue the review of the article. However, I will need to do quite a detailed review and point out any further problems. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second opinion requested - I have amended Talk:Elham Valley Railway and asked for a second opinion. This is a bit of a tricky article to review. Whilst I feel that this article hits most of the GA criteria, I feel that it is lacking something but I don't know what it is. Perhaps, it is because most of the railway stations on the Elham Valley Railway don't have an article but that shouldn't stop this article from passing. Second opinion needed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked The Rambling Man to take a look. Additionally, Redrose64 and Mjroots may be able to advise further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give this a proper look later, but one glaring source ommission is Mitchell, Vic; Smith, Keith (1985). Branch Lines Around Canterbury. Midhurst: Middleton Press. ISBN 978 1 873793 58 9.. Pages 32-35 and 104-20 cover the line. Mjroots (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can check to see if the library's got a copy (it has several of the other Middleton guides) but if it doesn't, I can't cite what I don't have. It may be more useful for creating or improving the existing station articles, and while there are probably additional facts we could pull from it, I don't think the lack of it fails the "broad in coverage" criteria for this article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm in Kent, I can probably borrow a copy from the library if you are unsucessful. As the GAR is on hold, it can remain that way for a few weeks as long as it can be demonstrated that efforts are being made to address issues raised. Probably won't fail on the coverage aspect without it, but will be all the better for having it as a source. Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. Although I find the Middleton books are a bit whimsical, and the lack of page numbers makes citations somewhat unorthodox, they contain facts that are worth adding. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't get too stressed about this, GAN doesn't require comprehensive coverage, just that it addresses the main aspects. If you want to go for A-class (?!) or FAC then adding in the Middleton guide would be certainly positive. But for GAN, not really. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 I'm happy to take a look once Mjroots (or anyone else) has added the further sources. Ping me when that's done and I'll give the article a full review. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a reservation for Mitchell & Smith. Should be with me by Saturday with a bit of luck. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help. With my previous reviews, I have expertise on UK railway stations that are still open, UK trains and UK places but I don't have much expertise on closed railway lines so I am struggling on this one. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the library this morning, while they do have several Middleton guides, such as Branch line to Tenderden, Branch line to Hawkhurst, Ashford to Dover and Swanley to Ashford, they don't have Branch Lines Around Canterbury (unless somebody has taken it out). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement whatsoever that a GA must use web sourcing. NBR 224 and 420 Classes passed GA, and has exactly one web source, being a PDF scan of a printed document, the paper form of which may be found in some libraries.
Mitchell & Smith (Middleton Press) don't use page numbers, they use map and photo numbers, for which we may collectively use the term "figure numbers". So the statement Pages 32-35 and 104-20 cover the line. given above probably means that figures 32-35 and 104-20 cover the line. The entry at the Middleton Press website supports this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying sourcing. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have done some more of the review. Just a few more attributes to review which I will do sometime this week. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book has arrived at my local library. Will collect on Saturday. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in some material from Mitchell and Smith. Will create articles for the missing stations over the weekend. Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - would you like to give the article look over now? Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots I will definitely do that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look for Mitchell / Smith (and Butt) in various second hand bookshops in Canterbury over the weekend, but nobody had a copy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I'm Editoneer and now I have difficulties aswell, I'm currently asking the asking desk to how to proceed I will forward the helper's comment here. Also the only problem I have is also the verifiability as all are books. Editoneer (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

":The best approach here is usually to assume good faith, but you can at least try Google Books or even Amazon to see if either will let you view inside the book just to verify a passage or two. But so long as the books used (or any print source like a journal) can be verified as existing (check the ISBN out) then we assume it's verifiable, just not necessarily easily verifiable. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 12:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)" - From the discussing page. Aw, I couldn't find anything valuable, I will throw the towel but continue to see this page as I don't know how to proceed. Editoneer (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much none of the book sources we use, such as those from Ian Allan or Middleton are available online at Google Books at all. I don't know why, but it does at least give us motivation to improve these articles. I'm sure Mjroots has fact checked most of the article by now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see anything that made me doubt the veracity of what is stated. Mitchell & Smith seems to broadly agree with other sources, as do other sources that I have. Not sure whether the little work I've done to he article disqualifies me from giving an opinion here or not, but if I am allowed to give an opinion it would be a pass. Mjroots (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "It opened between 1887 and 1889" in the lead yet the infobox gives a very precise "4 July 1887" as the date operations using the railway commenced. Potentially confusing.
The infobox is wrong, fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in East Kent" Seems odd to me to part-link a formal geographical location, if indeed "East Kent" is a real thing.
It is, but I'd consider East Kent to be things like Walmer, Deal, Sandwich and Cliffsend. Reduced to just "Kent" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking "shuttle service" (cf. link to World War II which is probably known to everyone reading, while this term may not be...)
Okay (it is linked in the body) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Parts of the railway, including Elham railway station were demolished " would expect a comma after "station".
A copyedit should sort that out - have a look now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with the pipes, you have different links for SER in the lead vs the infobox.
Looks like somebody moved South Eastern Railway (UK) to South Eastern Railway (England). Fixed that Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • War Dept isn't mentioned as an operator in the infobox, and the periods of operation by South Eastern and Chatham Railway and Southern Railway (48 years of the operation) aren't mentioned in the lead.
Do we need to put War Dept in the infobox? The SER -> SECR -> SR -> BR progression is fairly standard for stations and lines, and I don't think other comparable articles (eg: Marshlink line) have them Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well either the War Dept operated the line or it didn't. I'm not sure why it would be omitted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having given this careful thought, I agree with Ritchie333. Although under the military during both wars, the lines were still operated at least in part by the SE&CR/SR. During WWII, SR staff were maintained at all stations. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then the article should make it clear that the operation was collaborative and exactly as you say, maintained by civilian staff. I don't see that mentioned explicitly in the article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and military use, para 3, final sentence. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this time in English? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get it. But retaining staff and running the operation are two different things, no? If the operation was, by your words, "at least in part by the SE&CR/SR" then it was presumably (by deduction) in another "part by the War Dept", so that needs reflecting in the infobox. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Line length is referenced (although very odd placement for the ref, between the value and the units!) but gauge is not referenced or reaffirmed in the article.
Would like other editors' feedback on this one - basically unless a source specifically says otherwise, a railway connecting to the rest of the network is going to have standard gauge (how would the trains travel from one line to the other?). Can I claim citing the sky is blue on this one? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. We all know what the sky is and we know what blue is. But not many people at all know what "standard gauge" is. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ritchie333. It states in the infobox that the line was standard gauge, thus it is implicit that other lines linked to are also standard gauge. Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Query re line length. UK railways are measured in miles and chains. IMvHO, the line length would be better presented as 16 miles 20 chains (26.15 km) (see Hawkhurst Branch Line, a GA-class article). The reference for the length would be better placed in the body of the article rather than the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reference shouldn't be between the value and the units. Simple. And as for gauge, this is not verifiable and to readers who are not experts in UK rail travel, "standard gauge" is meaningless I'm afraid. Just cite it, it should be trivial to do so. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: The gauge is now sourced; the length is sourced in the body. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The South Eastern Railway had opened a line to Ashford in 1842, extending to Folkestone the following year and Canterbury in 1846." from where?
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nearest main markets in" what sort of markets do you mean here?
Linked market town Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canterbury-Dover" should be an en-dash.
I've run User:GregU/dashes.js over the article again; hopefully that'll fix it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the 12th" -> "on 12 January 1877".
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The SER felt threatened" this is somewhat anthropomorphic, not really encyclopedic writing.
Copyedited. (Off-topic: I was at the London meetup today explaining the reason the two lines into Canterbury from Ashford and Faversham don't interchange is because the SER and LCDR were fierce rivals and would rather cut their own noses off to spite their faces by making a stupidly complicated rail network) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in the 1880 session of Parliament" there was only one session of Parliament in 1880??
    There is typically only one State Opening of Parliament in each calendar year, and so in the normal course of things, the year 1880 will have covered parts of two parliamentary sessions: the latter part of the 1879–80 session and the first part of the 1880–81 session. As it happens, a general election was called in March 1880 (held on 27 April 1880), and so any business of the 1879–80 session that was still outstanding at dissolution will have lapsed and required re-introduction for the 1880–81 session. So if "the 1880 session of Parliament" means the one spanning 1879–80, the likelihood is that the Bill failed due to running out of time unexpectedly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I wasn't clear, I am aware that there is only one state opening of Parliament. But only one "session"? I doubt it. It needs explanation and referencing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited this bit of the article so this point is moot. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "capital of £150,000" inflate.
  • " for ​2 1⁄2 miles" this isn't converted, unlike most others?
  • Two more after this as well.
  • Why " by Major Hutchinson" when his name was "Charles Scrope Hutchinson"?
    • He was an officer of the Railway Inspectorate. At the time, all officers were retired army officers, who kept their rank and were referred to as such. Thus "Major Hutchinson" is correct and does not need changing. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well no, not really. It may have been that was how he was referred to "in-universe" but we wouldn't have prose anywhere else in Wikipedia which does this, e.g. we wouldn't say "Professor Hawking". You've got to realise that this article is not just for railway aficionados who "know this stuff", it's for everyone. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but you are wrong on this point. "Professor" is not a military rank in any case. See Quintinshill rail disaster for another example of an HMRI officer named by rank and surname. Many books on UK railway accidents use the rank/surname format, such as Red for Danger by L.T.C. Rolt, Rails to Disaster by Stanley Hall, and Obstruction Danger by Adrian Vaughan. We are just following the sources here. Maybe Redrose64 and/or Thryduulf would like to comment on this point. Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said, it's not about the "in universe" ways of referring to people, it's about Wikipedia's normal approach to such items. You can doubtless show me dozens or millions of railway-related articles or books which refer to this individual as "Major Hutchinson" but there were probably hundreds of "Major Hutchinson"s, this is an encyclopedia, we know who he was and his actual name, so by all means call him a Major, but link his real name, not some obfuscated "Major". Next up we'll be getting Major Major Major Major linked. Whatever next. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Regardless of what is or is not correct, this is not "in universe" and using a term that implies this is a fictional universe is rather disrespectful to all involved and not helpful to the discussion. If the person concerned has an encyclopaedia article then obviously that article should be linked to at whatever title consensus holds is the correct one. As for what name should be displayed, I'd say to follow the sources unless there is a strong precedent on Wikipedia to refrain from referring to people using military ranks - someone familiar with military history GAs and FAs would seem to be a useful person to comment on that point so I'll ask someone fro that project to opine. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I'm using "in universe" in this context to remind people who are clearly knowledgeable and enthusiastic that their understanding and general parlance is not what the rest of the world might assume to be the case, nor be intelligible to the general populace. It's not intended to be "rather disrespectful" and that's a stretch to try to come up with something problematic where no such thing exists. There is a general theme here that we should just accept non-verifiable material or "railway norms" because no-one has called it out before. That's unlucky really, because it's being called out now. And as for how to refer to historically significant individuals, let's go with their actual names, rather than obscuring it. If necessary, state (known as "Major Hutchinson") in the article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Major is wrong, at this date he was a retired Major-general. Nthep (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • " at 8:05am.[14][15][4] " non-breaking space between the time and "am", and order references numerically.
  • "cut and cover" should be hyphenated in this usage.
  • More monetary values which could use inflation.
  • Avoid single-sentence paras like the one starting "The South Eastern Railway and the London, Chatham and Dover Railway merged ..."
  • Put (SE&CR) after the first expanded instance.
  • "a halt at Risborough lane, Cheriton was" comma after Cheriton, and shouldn't "lane" be "Lane"?
  • "a ground frame being provided in the station building" excuse my igorance, I don't know what this means nor what it has to do with the previous clause of the sentence.
  • Is there an appropriate link for "loop siding"? That's a term with which I am completely unfamiliar.
  • "18-inch (460 mm)" but you didn't previously convert the 12-inch?
  • " Normandy landings.[44][42]" order.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be restored, surplus sidings " needs an "and" in there.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "points".
  • "Locations" any good reason that junctions are shown in italics here but nowhere else in the article or graphics?
  • "290-year old barn" that won't age well, probably a good idea to use a template to generate how old it is in years so this time next year you won't have to make it "291-year"
Changed to "early 18th century" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what the source is citing. In this case, I think all it was doing is citing that "There is a museum at Peene, near the Channel Tunnel terminal". A website about a museum is probably a reliable source for citing that the museum exists. However, I think what's happened here is that I went to find a better source while originally improving the article, and simply forgot to move this one (the clue is in the 2008 accessdate). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Britan - Kent and " should be en-dash.
  • Why is "Ken Elks" in italics?

That's all I have in a first pass. As usual, these are not presciptive nor all 100% required in any way by the GA criteria, but I think every one of them would result in a better article. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just an advisory here, I'm seeing the "rail project locals" descending to protect some of the idiomatic issues raised above. That's probably part of the problem with getting some of these articles reviewed. To ask for a simple reference to be added for "standard gauge" (whatever that means to 99.9% of the world) and to be confronted with such negative responses is quite disheartening for some I would imagine. The good news is that I know what we're trying to do here and we can do it, and it would improve not just this article but all railway articles, if we stop and think about the readers rather than just the folks "in the club". So let's try a bit harder to remember that not everyone reading Wikipedia lives in a Victorian England railway universe. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the majority of the unaddressed issues above, but my lengthy reply comment edit-conflicted, and it was too much work to go and unpick all of that. I don't have a source that actually says the Elham Valley Railway was standard gauge - I see your point that the railway articles should be understandable to non-enthusiasts, but the reliable sources we cite from most definitely aren't, and I can well believe that they're about as likely to mention standard gauge as that the trains were originally powered by steam. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So if it's an obscure term, what we should do is link it - we do not dumb it down. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, please could you note where I asked for anything to be "dumbed down"? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, not many people at all know what "standard gauge" is - the implication is that we should instead provide a longer explanation. How far should we go? I've met people who believe that the wheels run along "the stones" (presumably the sleepers and ballast) and that the rails are there merely to guide the trains. Should we explain the function of the track components? No, the wikilink feature is provided for our benefit, let's use it.
Also, let me make one thing absolutely clear: whilst I might be one of the "rail project locals", I did not "descend to protect some of the idiomatic issues raised above"; I was invited to participate, as was Mjroots. Past interactions have made it clear to me that you feel that the only participants in a GAN should be yourself and the nominator, and that you resent any attempt by others to assist the process, but GAN is in no way a one-to-one thing. Like all Wikipedia discussion pages, it's open to those not banned or blocked. So if you don't like me being here, you may either (i) blame Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) for inviting me in the first place; (ii) get the GAN rules (for instance, the part where it says "Other editors are also welcome to comment") changed so that participation criteria are tighter and more explicit; (iii) get me topic-banned either from GANs or from railway matters (your choice); or (iv) get me blocked outright. Until such time as I am prohibited, I will comment as I see fit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no implication of dumbing anything down. That's hyperbole, and sadly & unnecessarily inflammatory. The rest of your post is, well, whatever it is. I'm going to focus on the review here, not some unnecessary tirade. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: given all the discussion above and editing to the article as a result, it would probably be a good idea for you to do a second pass through the article and raise any outstanding issues below. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots sure, I'll do that in due course. One thing an admin ought to know, when you try to fix a ping, like you did here, it doesn't ping. You also probably know that as a GA reviewer (and a pretty diligent one), I don't really need the pings. Thanks anyway. This is on my backlog and will receive appropriate attention as and when. With 15 years experience and hundreds of reviews under my belt, I really don't need to be prompted to do that. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And per my normal reviewing style (and Ritchie's normal reviewing response) I normally wait until every comment I've made receives an inline response. So I'm still waiting. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above, I believe all issues are addressed one way or another, but I edit conflicted with posting my reply and so didn't post it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to it in due course. I don't really appreciate the hyperbole from Team Rail. But hey, this is Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "Cheriton – Barham" these are typically unspaced.
I'll take your word for it
  • Newington and Harbledown are dup linked.
Fixed (via script)
  • "by Major-general Hutchinson." no need to repeat his rank.
Done
  • sidings and loop sidings are linked to the same article.
Fixed per above script
  • "the Normandy landings.[44] [46]" no spaces between refs.
tweaked
  • Where is length of Bourne Park Tunnel refed?
Earlier, where it says "Continuing north, landowner Matthew Bell objected about the line passing through his land, and following a dispute the company agreed to a 329-yard (301 m) cut-and-cover tunnel" cited to Gray p. 238 (which mentions 329 yards verbatim). I've clarified the earlier prose
  • Again, why is Ken Elks in italics?
That appears to be a "feature" of {{cite web}}

The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing |website to |publisher will remove the italics, if that is what is desired. Mjroots (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just asking why it's in italics. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 This is pretty much okay now, I didn't start the review but I'd be happy to close and promote if you feel that wouldn't be stepping on the first reviewer's toes? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to wait a few days for the nominator to comment - if nothing happens after a few days, then I don't see why you can't promote it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAN/I#Step 2: Starting a review item 1 says "If someone else has started a review, you may add comments to the review page, but the review should be closed by the first reviewer."; and WP:GAN/I#Answering a second opinion says "Do not close a review started by another reviewer without first attempting to contact the first reviewer.", that being Pkbwcgs (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess if we worked in a purely bureaucratic sense that would be a solution. Obviously that makes practically no sense at all when the vast majority of the review has been conducted by someone else, but why let sense get in the way I guess. Fantastic that the guidance self-contradicts, thanks for pointing that out. And I already pinged the first reviewer. So... cheers, I think. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: @The Rambling Man: I am quite busy right now. I will look into this at the weekend. I have been very busy recently so I haven't had the time to have a look at this review. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does the guidance self-contradict? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pkbwcgs are you able to take a look at this soon? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: - As I understand it, as you have attempted to contact the first reviewer, and the first reviewer gave a timeframe in which he would review the article but failed to do so, you are now at liberty to promote, should you think fit. Mjroots (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in no rush. After all, I wouldn't want to ruffle any feathers or, heaven forbid, break any absurd process rules! I'm sure Pkbwcgs will get to this soon. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Unfortunately, I am far too busy which is why my editing frequency has dropped this week. I am going to have to forfeit this review. I would pass this article based on the discussion that I have been reading but I am supposed to have a proper look at it. I don't want to just pass this straightaway without having a full glance at the article otherwise it will look like I have passed this in a last-minute rush and I want to take care in the GA reviews that I do. Sorry. You can pass this if you are happy to pass it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Thanks for finishing the review. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stations

[edit]

I've created articles on all stations that didn't have an article, and expanded that on Elham from Mitchell & Smith. Feel free to expand and improve them from other sources. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If I can find any other suitable sources, I'll have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history categorizes this as one of their articles that needs a little editing in terms of fixing grammar mistakes. I revised over this page today, and fixed all I could find, but I’m not sure...it still seems like a previous editor just took all the facts they could find about the topic and threw them into one page. I haven’t done much research on the subject of the article, so I won’t know how to fix those mistakes, so I was hoping someone else could. Please notify me if you’re able to fix this article. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't fixed any grammar, but you've added Americanisms such as "Forms of media such as", said "that consisted of weapons such as" instead of simply "including" or "During this time" instead of simply "when" and spelled "authorised" the American way. This is an article about a British railway, and should used British English. I don't think these are improvements, so I'm afraid I'll have to revert. I've gone through the article and tightened up a bit of the prose; there can't be too much wrong with it as a number of experienced editors have looked at this recently and done quite a few fixes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was just fixing what I could. I didn’t realize that. I just thought some of it was written rather poorly. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can fix some of the issues The Rambling Man mentions in Talk:Elham Valley Railway/GA1. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard gauge

[edit]

Surely WP:BLUE applies here? The SER, SE&CR, SR and BR(S) are all companies that operated standard gauge railways. The only time we need to cite a gauge is when it is "non-standard" for the area it is in, such as the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway, a narrow gauge railway in standard gauge territory. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've just been through records in Hansard, the London Gazette and The Times archives, the latter of which has the complete bills for the railway as they were read verbatim c. 1880. None of them mention this, not because it's untrue but because nobody thought it important to clarify beyond that it would plug into the rest of the network. I found one sources which suggested it (eg: "to construct the line as double track to main line standards", where "main line standards" obviously means standard gauge, if that helps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Section 1 of the Gauge Act 1846 forbids the future construction of any railway for the conveyance of passengers on any gauge other than 4 feet 8+1⁄2 inches in Great Britain and 5 feet 3 inches in Ireland. Section 2 of the same Act allows exemption for any Railway constructed or to be constructed under the provisions of any present or future Act containing any special enactment defining the gauge or gauges of such railway or any part thereof. What this means is that if a post-1846 Act authorising a new railway does not explicitly state the gauge, it is implicitly to have a gauge of 4 feet 8+1⁄2 inches. Presumably the problem is that we are being asked to provide a citation for the omission of the gauge from the Elham Valley Railway Act - I don't think that there will be such a source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source shortly after I wrote the above comment and it's now in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elham_Valley_Railway&oldid=1196718213"