Jump to content

Talk:Chemin de fer des Côtes-du-Nord

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


Peer review / GA review

[edit]

Please add all comments, suggestion etc here. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression is "nice work" due to the extent of information presented. The areas for improvement that I can see on a quick read are:
  • The lead section seems a little short for an article of this length. Some items that could be added here are the reasons behind the railway's construction and the ultimate disposition up to and including the present efforts at building a heritage railway with part of the line. Done
  • Although there are a large number of references listed in the Bibliography section, one of the first points that GA reviewers bring up is the ratio of text to footnotes. For comparison, listing references only at the end was the main reason that the Pioneer Zephyr article was brought to WP:FAR (review), and it kept its FA status mainly because I went through it converting the references list and external links into footnotes as appropriate.
  • You've already seen me go through linking all the dates so that user date preferences work. I noticed in doing that there were a few dates that were formatted as 'MONTH DAY, YEAR' while most others were formatted as 'DAY MONTH YEAR' (and some were linked while others were not). The important point here is that whatever format is chosen, it should remain consistent throughout the article text. Done
  • The rolling stock section, while it does present information that is not easily available elsewhere, looks like it could be condensed somewhat. Rather than listing every locomotive individually, can they be grouped by class? For comparison, the tables of individual locomotives in some of the articles about British locomotive classes had to be split out into their own list articles before the articles would pass GA status. Done
  • I really like the wealth of images here, but as with other articles that contain a lot of images, the edit tags all get lumped together farther down than the section headers they relate to. Other than removing images (a solution that I don't like much) or adding more text to each of the sections, we're not going to be able to do much to fix this.
  • With so many lines shown in the route box, it can get confusing at times trying to follow specific lines through to the station and city article links. Can the route box be intelligently split into smaller boxes without making it look like there are a huge number of boxes in the article? No - see reply for explanation.
  • There's quite a bit of information here about the operational history of the various lines (dates of construction and operation, distinctive features of each line and the commodities hauled), but I don't see much in the way of the company's financial history or the people involved in creating and managing the railway. Was it merely damage from the wars that led to the railway's closure or was the railway not profitable enough?
Slambo (Speak) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
  • Lead section - will try and expand this.  Done, but still needs a bit more expansion.
  • Bibliography - the only one of the books I've seen is the Northern France Narrow Gauge book, the rest were added from the article on the French language article, presumably by someone registered on that project. Hopefully a bit of collaboration with a French speaking contributor to WP:Trains will enable more books to be turned into in-line references.
  • Dates - Appreciate comments here, thanks for help with this. My preference is dd/mm/yyyy. Looks like the dates are all done now.
  • Rolling stock - are you sure that individual locomotives and railcars are not important enough to merit their own entry, rather than a blanket class mention? yes, it's a list at the moment, but hopefully as further sources come to light it will expand.
Have condensed it, but had to lose an image for it to display nicely. Mjroots (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images - there are actually less images than there are on the French article. Will try and ensure presentation is a good as it can be in the short term, and expansion in the longer term will cure the problem.
  • Lines / Route box - I don't think the route box should be split into individual line diagrams, but will work on merging the lines so that there aren't so many sections there.
I've been looking at the diagram, and think I can get the lines down to four subsections:- St. Brieuc - Plestin (& branches), St. Brieuc - Rostrenen (& branches), St. Brieuc - Dinan (& branches) and Yffiniac - Dinard (& branches).
 Done but it still needs a bit more tweaking. St. Brieuc-Quinten section isn't mentioned, for example. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Financial history, reasons for closure etc - this is something that I don't know much about, needs input from other Wikipedians here. From what I've read, the lines were actually kept open longer because of the war, and would have probably closed in the early 1940s had war not broken out. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm fairly new here, but this is one of the nicest articles I've seen, informative easy to read and pleasant on the eye. The map on the right hand side was a very good idea. Congratulations.Petethewhistle (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Simply south

[edit]

Simply south left these comments on my talk page:-

I'm not sure about it but i can still give some general pointers on some things missing. I've never done a proper GA review. I'll see what i can do.

Here thing's to start off which certainly need sorting out:

  • All or most paragraphs must have references. These can either be cited using templates or (what i find best using) Harvard. So where you got the information from needs to link to maybe pages in the books, brochures etc. Most of the material i see on the article is unreferenced and need to link to the sources you have provided.  Done
  • There are huge white spaces in the article, there needs to be some rearranging of pictures and information to sort this out.  Done
  • Possibly, just my opinion, some of the sentences are too long and could be split up a bit.
  • There needs to be an expansion on World War II and the line today. Are there any future uses? It seems the article focusses a lot on the history but does not give much weight on the rest.

I'm still looking for someone to be the arbiter of the GA process, as I don't think I'm allowed to do it myself! Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply
-
References - Most of the article has been translated from the French article, as noted in the references section. Do I need to add a ref citing the French article to every paragraph? Other research I've done is fully referenced. Personally, I don't like Harvard referencing, and although it is one way of referencing, using it is not a prerequisite for the GA process.
White spaces - I'm not seeing huge areas of white space. The biggest area I can see is between the contents list and route diagram.  Done
Long sentences - Will look at this and amend as necessary.
World War Two / line today - This area is going to need the assistance of our French colleagues. There is a greater chance of info on the line in World War Two being published locally in France as it would be local history to that area. The line today would be a matter of local knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

Yes, references do need to be added to most paragraphs although the lead is a different case. The most common way to cite is using the {{Cite}} tags. It does not really matter on Harvard, that's just me. Anyway, another point is that the article must have more than one source so it is not always good to take things from the single source. Done - nine different sources used for this article so far, not counting all the sources in the French article. Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are medium white spaces but a particular large one i see is between the Viaduc de Lézardrieux and Pont sur le Léguer paragraphs. Simply south (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the white space: Maybe. I just see a large white space (ignoring the RDT straddling the side) between "The failure to rebuild the bridge accelerated the closure of the line west of Paimpol" and "The 6.1 kilometres (3.8 mi) line between Tréguier and Lannion opened on 11 August 1906 and closed on 15 April 1949." Other smaller one may not matter but...

I suppose it might just be my monitor. Simply south (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fibo.cdn

[edit]

Before all, sorry for beeing late for answering to your questions and for my poor english.

As you tell the lines were closed due to financial reasons. All the lines have been closed and the rails were dismounted. In 1957, there was no more track. In december 1986 (30 years after the closure of the railway), some enthousiasts decided to create a preservation group. Their goals were to preserve all still existing material, to create a museum (http://www.trains-fr.org/cdn/musee.htm) and to create a touristical / historical line on a portion of the old line Saint-Brieuc - Moncontour. For more details, you can look at http://www.trains-fr.org/cdn or ask me. Fibo.cdn 194.3.231.254 (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

This article should be renamed « Chemin de fer des Côtes-du-Nord », according to the official french name of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.130.146 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to Keep the capital "F" as Chemin de Fer is often abbreviated CF - the English equivalent is "Railway" which always has a capital R - GCR, SECR, GNSR etc., etc. If it should be "des" then the page can be moved in the future - This is a minor issue that can wait for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk} 11:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Title has been changed several times, and is now with the capital F and the "des". Article does not need moving again. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chemin de Fer des Côtes-du-Nord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chemin de Fer des Côtes-du-Nord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemin_de_fer_des_Côtes-du-Nord&oldid=1216608143"