Talk:Chiltern Railways/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Chiltern Railways. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Infobox Image
What a rubbish and quality-less image that has replaced good enough pictures, I have reverted this pointless and useless change. Britishrailclass91 (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Assume good faith! :) SeveroTC 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Quite. The edit summary that made the offending change [1] read "Swapped pictures around to fully populate current fleet table without duplication", which sounded a reasonable thing to do. Unfortunately, I agree that the image put in the infobox was of a poor quality, especially for such a prominent one. So it was OK to put the other one back, but not to make remarks about it being "pointless" and "useless". --RFBailey (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- The replaced image has no author information, so this is hardly an improvement if the image gets deleted from commons. MickMacNee (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Quite. The edit summary that made the offending change [1] read "Swapped pictures around to fully populate current fleet table without duplication", which sounded a reasonable thing to do. Unfortunately, I agree that the image put in the infobox was of a poor quality, especially for such a prominent one. So it was OK to put the other one back, but not to make remarks about it being "pointless" and "useless". --RFBailey (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Project Evergreen
The "Evergreen 3" section reads rather like a press release (I'd be surprised if there weren't copyright issues). It could do with something of a rewrite, since it doesn't seem to be entirely WP:NPOV, and there is much repetition: for example, the intended station at Water Eaton Parkway is mentioned three times.
Also, there are only four references. Two of the refs are placed together (one of which leads to a website front page with very little content), and one ref is a dead link. Between the two which do carry useful information, there isn't enough to back up the whole of the Evergreen 3 section, so it's largely unsourced. Here's a ref which might provide more material, or at least back up the existing unsourced material:
- Pigott, Nick, ed. (2010). "Chiltern to run Oxford-Marylebone". The Railway Magazine. 156 (1307). London: IPC Media: 9. ISSN 0033-8923.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)
There's apparently going to be a larger article due in the April 2010 issue (pub. 3 March 2010). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)