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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Edinburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Edinburgh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EdinburghWikipedia:WikiProject EdinburghTemplate:WikiProject EdinburghEdinburgh articles
Edinburgh, Leith and Newhaven Railway was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
I've added an edited version to the article. It's maybe a little bit crunchy, I should have rasterized at a higher value. I may redo it if I get the chance. --John (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to have some expansion of the sourcing comment. I regard the Railscot site and The Illustrated History of Edinburgh's Railways as pretty good and reliable sources. I can see the merit in getting multiple sources for contentious or controversial claims, but I am struggling to see it for this article; as long as reliable sources are provided, what's the problem? --John (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it another way. The article was created on 19th and submitted for GAN on 22nd? The grammar is good, it is neutral and the prose is good. It has fifteen in-line citations, three of which come from RailScot - which I happen to agree is a reliable source; one from a youth club web site to verify that one station is currently in use as a youth centre; one from a web site on Leith Citadel railway station, which is more of an External link than a citation. You use Peter Stubbs' web site as a citation for rediscovery of the southern entrance; it is an interesting web site and its probably acceptable for that purpose, but unlike Railscot, it does not list its references.
The article is some way between a C-class article and a B-class article. It is currently classed as C-class, but I shalln't object if it is reclassified as a B-class article; but it is not a GA-class article. The article is not much longer than Leith Central railway station, which is currently a Start-class article, but that is somewhat under referenced. I'm not asking for multiple sources, I'm asking for sources and an adequate scope. RailScot and SubBrit would normally go into the External links section; but as SubBrit has information on the Scotland Street tunnel that probably does not exist elsewhere, I would accept SubBrit as an in-line citation for post-railway use of Scotland Street tunnel, etc. The Scotland Street tunnel linked to Waverley railway station at right angles to the through lines, but that is not in your article. You mention the Granton boat trains, but the significance is greatly underplayed: the link stopped because the Forth Railway Bridge was built, but that's not in the article. The more I think about it, you have in terms of scope a Start-class article that is referenced by about ten to fifteen minutes of google searches. You have Awdry, Jowett & Smith and Anderson in the sources, but they are not cited as references; were they added as an after thought or did they get copied and pasted from elsewhere? The Glasgow and South Western Railway is a better article than this, and it is only start-class, I must re-assess it to night.
The following references cover the line (in full or part), I verified them to night; and I suspect that you probably could have got these references from RailScott:
Robertson, C. J. A. (1983). The Origins of the Scottish Railway System: 1722-1844 (1st ed.). Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd. ISBN0-8597-6088-X.
Thomas, John (1971). A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain. Vol. VI Scotland: The Lowlands and the Borders (1st ed.). Newton Abbot, Devon: David & Charles. ISBN0-7153-5408-6. OCLC16198685.
Thomas, John; Paterson, Rev A. J. S. (1984). A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain. Vol. VI Scotland: The Lowlands and the Borders (2nd ed.). Newton Abbott, Devon: David & Charles. ISBN0-9465-3712-7. OCLC12521072.
Jowett, Alan (1993). Jowett's Atlas of Railway Centres: of Great Britain showing their development from the earliest times up to and including the 1990s - Volume 1 (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN1-8526-0420-4. OCLC30919645.
To avoid any doubt, I'm not "attacking" the article as such; the article is generally good. I casting doubts on the wisdom of submitting an article to GAN which was less than a week old; which was of limited scope and used a limited number of web-based references. Pyrotec (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your insightful comments. The 90 degree link at Canal St is mentioned, but only in the connections section. I look forward to improving this with you. --John (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This railway is extensively covered in, books listed in Category:Rail transport book citation templates. For example, Robertson (1983), Thomas (1971), Jowett (1993), Awdry (1990). The Sub Brit web site has useful information not found elsewhere, such as the use of Scotland Street tunnel as a WWII air raid shelter, etc; but for other than this its an External link, not a reference. The article is currently at about C-class, certainly not a GA.
I don't like putting spoiling remarks in the face of an article, so this is here:
An early part of the text reads
The Act of Parliament to allow building of the railway received its Royal Assent on 13 August 1836. A further Act of Parliament on 1 July 1839 authorised an extension to Newhaven.
So in 1836 the line was authorised to go from Edinburgh to Newhaven (and Leith), and in 1839 an extension was authorised, to, er, Newhaven.
(This correctly reflects what Awdry says, but hey, Awdry is just an Encyclopaedia, i.e. a tertiary source like Wikipedia, anyway. And Awdry is no stranger to inaccuracy.)
If that's right, it needs to be explained, but it isn't what Smith & Anderson, Carter or Paterson say, and their story stacks up much more logically. I wonder why their material is ignored?
In fact nearly all the citations on the page are to other tertiary sources, or are only supporting very narrow sections of the story.
Still, I liked the Wikilink to mushroom in case anyone interested in railway history was uncertain what the term means.
I am rather uncomfortable with the map; the colour coded key is discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines; I don't know what the broad pale green line is supposed to represent. Pale green is "Tunnel 1847" but it obviously isn't that. I applaud the provision of a map, but maybe this one could be improved a little ... ? Afterbrunel (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References to the Duke of Buccleuch's harbour tramway lead to the page of the Duke which does not mention the tramway. Can the link be removed or prove a source of evidence to the tramway, which we know existed. AsparagusTips (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
