Talk:Cleveland Railway (England)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Its not forgotten, but it will be Friday before I will be adding any comment here. Pyrotec (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the update. Prioryman (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've done a fairly quick initial read of the article and I've added a few wikilinks along the way rather than list them here as "problems" for someone else to fix, but I've not yet checked any of the references/citations.

I'm still trying to digest my thoughts. There is good material in this article, but I have slight doubts as to whether the article is currently "laid out" as a GA. The WP:Lead has certain defined functions, for instance it should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points, and this latter function should be in "proportion" as per the body of the article.

For instance: some of the "findings" that came to light during the quick read were that "things" were wikilinked in the Lead and given abbreviations there, such as NER, and then written about in the body of the article only in unlinked form and/or abbreviated form. I've fixed some of these "problems", but the purpose of the lead is not (as an example) to defined the "NER" as the "North Eastern Railway", if and when the body of the article only refers to the NER - the NER is clearly an abbreviation so it aught to be defined in the body of the article. That also applied to the "S&D" and the "WHH&R". The article also seems to be based mostly on the use of a single source - Harrison & Dixon. (sorry about the "rant").

I'm going to work my way through the article again in more detail, starting at the History section and ending with the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• History -

• Most of this section appears to be based on the work: Guisborough Before 1900, Editors: B.J.D. Harrison, and Grace Dixon, Published by G. Dixon, which appears to be a self-published book. Questions tend to be raised about self-published book and whether they can be regarded as WP:Reliable sources. I did some investigating and a web site (which wikipedia has blocked) indicates that the book had many contributing authors and that its source material was used in 1960s and 1970s as lecture material in the Adult Education Centre of Leeds University in Middlesbrough. So, the book should be fairly reliable source, but I do intend to check so of the statements against more traditional railway sources. Pyrotec (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• If it's of any help, Guisborough before 1900 is quite highly regarded as a source among local historians. It's been cited by quite a few of them; see [1] for examples. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I had the article open in one browser tab and this page in another tab, so I've only just spotted your comments. Yes, it seems to have more detail than I've found in railway books that I have to hand. I've commented on one difference below. Another that I've not made below is that Ralph Ward Jackson is described as Chairman of the WHH&R, but as this is about the Cleveland Railway the description "from the boards" appears to be OK to me. Note: the article does say first chairman (... of the WHH&R) in the Origins of the line subsection so that is covered already. Pyrotec (talk) Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Origins of the line -

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• In general, this subsection appears to be compliant, but I do have one minor comment. The M&GR is described as a subsidiary of the Stockton and Darlington (S&D): other sources that I've looked state that S&D operated the services on the M&GR from the start, but the two companies amalgamated on 23 July 1858 - the year the Act for the Cleveland Railway was obtained.
• Note: this has implications for the wording of the first paragraph of the following subsection (Extension of the line to Normanby).

• • Extension of the line to Normanby -

• See comment above.
• Otherwise, OK.

• • Mergers, onward connections and closures -

• Compliant.

• Cleveland Railway today -

• Compliant.

• WP:Lead -

• The Lead is required to provide both an introduction to the topic of the article and a summary of the main points in the body of the article (see WP:Lead for the full requirements).
• It strikes a good balance, covering such as problems with its rival the "S&D" and its relationship with the WHH&R. The only "point" that the Lead didn't seem to cover was the "person" of Ralph Ward Jackson, a leading figure on both this railway and the WHH&R. Whilst he is mentioned a few times in the body of the article (he appears in five paragraphs) the difficulties with the S&D take up much more words. However, perhaps a mention in the first paragraph could be made? Pyrotec (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I did a minor copyedit on the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative, well-written and well illustrated article on this railway topic.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Prioryman (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)