Talk:Churnet Valley Railway

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Churnet Valley Railway.

Tagging

My impression, though it's not my area, is that David Moore has written extensively on this (eg for Journal of the North Staffordshire Railway Study Group). Are you saying that his info is unreliable, or otherwise unacceptable? Bob aka Linuxlad 22:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. People such as David Moore and volunteers at the CVR such as myself do not need sources - we know about these things!

Aidan Croft 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's probably a slight overstatement - but if you produce a publication which achieves a measure of circulation in the area, and amongst those interested, which I presume JNSRS does, then I'd have thought that counted as an adequately-reviewed source. Bob aka Linuxlad 00:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I apologise for being overly excited there!

Aidan Croft 12:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources Tag Explanation

Placing a primary sources tag on an article does not imply any intentional desire to create an un-encyclopedic entry or that the sources are inaccurate. It does say the encyclopedic content of the article would be greatly improved by the addition of reference.

Verifiability

The three core content policies of Wikipedia are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, In general primary sources are created at or near the time being studied, often by the people being studied, and so provide a good foundation for beginning to building an article. But primary sources are by definition often orginal research and due to conflict of interest concerns may not be written from a neutral point of view.

Which articles still need verifying as per August-2014 notice? I have added a number since then, is this enough?

No original research and Neutral point of view

The addition of Secondary sources which are usually based on primary sources and other secondary sources by a third party who is not connected to the source, provides for a more neutral point of view and being based on the combined research of others would not be orginal research. Here you see that the addition of secondary sources assists the editor to write (and readers to verify) an article that meets all three core content policies of Wikipedia.

Notability

Additionally, an article must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for it to remain on Wikipedia. One of the Rationale for requiring a level of notability is that a in order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources. Everyday Multiple articles are proposed and considered for deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy an article that is not clearly notable is not likely to survive the deletion process. Keeping in mind that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Jeepday 16:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Churnet Valley Railway. 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20140812003340/http://www.mcrailways.co.uk/page/reconnect-leek to http://www.mcrailways.co.uk/page/reconnect-leek

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) 11:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]