Talk:Edinburgh Trams/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 17:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take this one on. James^x1 2345 17:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged a lot of dead links - the wayback machine should be your friend. There are some other issues, but I'll go through line by line and list them.

I've fixed all the ones capable of being fixed. The remaining ones should stay, I believe, per WP:LINKROT.

"is a tram system that is under" - "is a tram system under" is more concise

Done, and I agree. RGloucester — 📬 18:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is not especially balanced - it is essentially 3 paragraphs about the problems, where one would probably suffice. Perhaps something could be said about the old trams, or a little more detail about the route? There are also a lot of refs that are probably redundant to those further on in the article.

This is tricky. I somewhat agree with you, but I wasn't sure how to go about it. The "problems" have been the main news story in Edinburgh for ages at this point. I had planned to reference Edinburgh Corporation Tramways, however, I wasn't sure if I should expand the piece that is already there in the history section, or just leave it. I'll see what I can do. If you have any more ideas, feel free to write them.

I know what you mean, especially when not working is their defining attribute.

I've done my best to trim parts that are duplicated in the main body, and added a small blurb on the old network…

History is undereferenced

In what way, or what particular sections?

I could put in a few {{cn}}s, but they make it look messy. "ran from 1871 until it was decommissioned on 16 November 1956" needs a ref, as does "Until August 2011", but otherwise looks OK. I might find a few more though.

Done.

There are lots of one-sentence paragraphs. Merging some might make it more readable.

I've reduced this problem, though in some places I might've been overzealous.

"Critical scrutiny of the proposals" suddenly goes back to 2007. Chronological order would make more sense, I think.

Done.

"which will be suspended either from specially erected poles or from buildings, when possible." - makes it sound like the cables will go on the ground if they can't find something to hang them from. "which will be suspended from specially erected poles or when possible from buildings." - is a bit better (but not much). That paragraph has no links or refs, so could do with some of each.

Hopefully dealt with in satisfactory manner.

"delays to the infrastructural works" - "delays to work on the infrastructure"

Should be fixed now.

There's a lot of detail on the difficulties, as above. Perhaps some of it could be trimmed, or even, given the magnitude of its media coverage, moved to another article?

As said above, this is tricky. I've tried to trim some, but I don't think another article is warranted. Given that the "fiasco" is a rather integral part of the whole project's notability, at the moment, at least, I think most of the reporting should remain. However, if you feel differently, please offer suggestions on what you think is non-essential.

"is now closed to traffic until July 2013" - out of date

Updated and re-referenced.

"Although not indicated on the Edinburgh Trams web site, the notice to residents stated that part of the works to be carried out, in the order of seven weeks, is the re-excavation of all the services and utilities moved during the previous extended partial closure of this thoroughfare. The necessity for this work was not identified by Edinburgh Trams" - I don't much like this sentence, somehow. It seems to be over-analysing a single article from the Scotsman.

I've scrapped this sentence all together, because I really don't think it is needed, and isn't neutral.

"trackbed would have to be ripped up and replaced between Shandwick Place and Haymarket, due to shoddy workmanship" - not neutrally worded.

I've tried to fix this, and replaced "shoddy worksmanship" with "because the concrete was not laid to the correct specifications".

"error with regards to the concrete" - "error with regard to the concrete"

Done.

"Continuing criticism has been launched at the tram project from all quarters, even as it has neared completion" - slightly sensationalist tone.

I believe that removing "from all quarters" should handle this.

"fleet of 27 trams" - could it be made clearer that that refers to the whole thing?

Did my best here.

"and is worth up to £40 million." - unsourced

Done. Here is the reference.

Does Livery merit a whole level 2 heading?

I've put it as a level 3 heading under the operations level 2 heading, which makes more sense.

I'll let you get on with making some changes, as you clearly know what needs fixed. Working on the Edinburgh article, I came across the odd disappearance of overly optimistic press releases when they were proved laughably wrong, which has clearly happened here as well. Most of them are archived though, so can be fixed. James^x1 2345 18:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review, I'll work on this over the next couple of days. RGloucester — 📬 19:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've done some pretty impressive work in the past hour or so, but I'll let you fix a few more tags before I review it again. James^x1 2345 19:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I think I've taken care of most of everything else, I'm now planning to think out how to reduce the amount of emphasis on the "fiasco" aspect and to trim the lead…RGloucester — 📬 20:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done what I can do, we'll see what happens. RGloucester — 📬 22:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

16 September

There are still quite a few dead links, which per the Good article criteria are not grounds for failing, but they look a bit messy. I'll have a go at fixing some of them.

Does it make sense to merge with Edinburgh Tram (vehicle), which isn't very long?

Could the information on the route be made into a separate level-2 subheading, to better split up the article?

Just seen "However, as the line was but back to York Place" under Rolling stock

In this edit there were a number of good minor changes, which should ideally be redone.

I would personally remove a lot of numbers from the introduction, especially the intermediate estimates of cost.

James^x1 2345 19:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dead links that remain link to the old Edinburgh Trams website, which was taken down. They are all PDFs which are not archived. Yet, because I'm sure they are available offline from the Council archives, I'm leaving them in per WP:LINKROT.
Merging with the vehicle page, I don't agree with. I've been using Manchester Metrolink as a model, which keeps them separate. In fact, all UK tram articles do this. Furthermore, that might be considered straying from the topic.
By this, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the graphic, which is part of the proposals subheader?

I was thinking mainly of the graphic, yes. It just seems a bit odd not to have a specific heading for the route, because here it gets a bit bogged down in proposals and cancellations.

What've I've done is made a new route subsection of the operations level 2 header, which details the final route in the form of a chart. This way, the graphic in the proposals section is used to demonstrate the plans, whereas the chart provides links to all the stations. Is this satisfactory?

Fixed.
All of these changes that did not remove critical content have been reimplemented.
This has been solved.
RGloucester — 📬 18:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17 September

Some excellent progress has been made. It would be nice to get it wrapped up tonight if possible.

One of the GA requirements in consistent citations, which means the reflinks generated ones have to be bulked out with work and date etc. - probably easier, and preferable, just to use the templates.
" 2008, and has been met with many delays and contractual disputes" - "and" - "but" reads better
The third and fourth paras of the intro could be merged.
"Towards the end of the 20th century..." - this sentence needs a reference.
It would be nice to get a working reference for the original route proposal. What I find on the BBC website doesn't concord exactly with what is written, which makes it confusing.
This (top link) has lots of good information, expecially about the Transdev contract. I'll try to find a PDF somewhere].
"Works on the integral infrastructure" and "The initial system uses a mix of street running and segregated off-road track..." are both needing a ref.

Comments

I'll get to work on the find the appropriate references. I've fixed the stylistic problems you've mentioned. However, I've tried to no end to find the original route proposals. I saw the PDFs before they became dead links a while ago, however, it seems they've all been totally removed. I'm sure they still exist in print at the Council archives…but I can't really do anything about that at the moment. I'll keep looking. If I may ask, though, what do you mean by "bulking out" the references? RGloucester — 📬 17:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding all the parameters with the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} templates. Reflinks only does the title. I'm pretty pedantic in that way. James^x1 2345 17:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll do that as well. I did find this PDF about Line 3…Line 3 alignment RGloucester — 📬 17:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interim report is now at archive.org (if needed).

Okay…I think I've fixed all the references, and put them in template format. It took awhile (*whew*). Everything else is done, and also made some minor grammar fixes along the way. RGloucester — 📬 00:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through the refs, merged a few, added a few, removed some redundant ones etc. and am happy. Could you please check my work, and if you don't find anything, I'm happy it meets the criteria. James^x1 2345 20:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone through it, everything looks in order, including licenses on the images, which I checked. This has been a great effort over the past few days, and I'd like to thank everyone for their assistance. Previously, this article had been languishing hopelessly outdated. Now it provides decent information, just as the trams will soon be in service. RGloucester — 📬 21:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.