Jump to content

Talk:Newhaven Marine railway station/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 15:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • "short branch off the Seaford branch line near" it was a branch of a branch?
Yes, it was a branch off that branch line, which in turn is a branch off the East Coastway line
  • "It was the last station to open in Newhaven " forgive me but it is not commonplace for most regular sized places to just have one station?
Not necessarily, because of 19th century history. For example, Ashford had Ashford West, Maidstone still has Maidstone West, Maidstone East, Maidstone Barracks
  • "cross-channel" should be Channel.
Fixed
  • "inaccessible parliamentary trains until" what sense of "inaccessible" applies here? The trains ran but no-one could access them?
Exactly right. Watch the video in the external links for proof!
  • From infobox, where is DfT category F1 and NVM referenced?
It isn't, that's out of date
  • Link for Redhill?
Linked
Potentially, but it's a minor bit of trivia and obviously nobody has thought to create it until now
Thing is, by convention we have redirects from bold inline text ordinarily. I don't really see what harm it would do, yes, not a GA criteria, but in the pursuit of excellence... and all that.
  • "serve cross-channel traffic" see before, it's the Channel.
fixed
  • "traffic, adjacent to the site was named Newhaven Wharf which opened" feels like some commas missing, and here you say "the site" but what site?
Mean the ferry terminal
linked
  • "extended to Seaford.[6]" currently linked to a dab, but no need to link as it's (correctly) linked in the main body in the previous section already.
Must have forgotten to unlink it
  • "from Victoria beginning" might be less confusing for some if you called this London Victoria?
Don't see why not
  • "was renamed Newhaven Harbour and the new station called Newhaven Harbour (Boat Station)." one name not in italics, one name in italics, but probably both need to be in bold?
Fixed
  • "once a busy station" anything quantifiable? Busy relative to what? Perhaps this needs to be a quote with attribution if we can't find facts to back this up in your sources?
I guess this means "busy" as a passenger ferry terminal. Anyway, copyedited
  • "removing Newhaven Marine's principal importance" I didn't see that cited in the reference provided.
Is this really "information challenged or likely to be challenged"? Since the station was originally named "Boat Station" I would have assumed this was alright
  • Just noticed you didn't relink "boat train" in the main article, I'd just check that the things you've linked in the lead, you relink on the first instance in the main article.
fixed
Fixed
  • "site of fascination" this is piped to railfan, but "railway enthusiasts" already links there, so both not required. I'd unlink "fascination" as that's something of an easter egg to be fair.
Copyedited
  • "access to the site remained impossible" really?
Yes, there was a big fence in the way. See the video
  • "The parliamentary train" again consistency....
fixed
  • "the Department for Transport (DfT)" link appropriately first time and then use the abbreviation subsequently....
Fixed, I think the second one was probably because a link for the whole job title wasn't there
  • "Network Rail suggested" link.
Done
  • "£1.9 million " non breaking space
Done
  • "consultation closed on" ended (to avoid the quick repeat of close).
Done
  • Office of Rail and Road uses "and" not & and has an article.
  • "the Office of Rail & Road for ratification, and after the Office of Rail & Road approved" ugh repeat, second could just be "it"
Copyedited generally
  • "for the Department for Transport and local" -> "for the DfT and local"
Done (see above)
  • "facility.<rec name=Closure/>" ref name.
D'uuuh
  • Ref 1, The Argus is a work.
I think it's a newspaper
  • I imagine ref 2 is similar for the Railway Gazette.
And that's a magazine
  • Ref 3 and 4 are both DfT but formatted differently?
Different websites and sources of information. Still, try that
  • You link The Argus but not The Independent in the refs?
Done
  • Hansard could also be italicised and linked.
Done
  • Ref 18 lacks website/publication/publisher.
Fixed, it's Hansard too
  • Ref 22 is DfT but formatted differently again to refs 3 and 4.
Tweaked
  • "Sussex - Local" en-dash.
  • Same for first and third external link.
I don't know how to do those, sorry (though I think I said that before)

That's it, on hold. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but replies in now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pass, there are a couple of comments above which I know aren't GAN requirements, so I can hardly complain about them, just thoughts for a better article. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newhaven_Marine_railway_station/GA1&oldid=1098044218"