Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marshlink line/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 2 May 2024 [1].

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love travelling on the Marshlink line; it's an interesting idiosyncrasy on the rail network in South East England. Instead of high speed, high volume, electric commuter services, it's a picturesque run through rural Kent and East Sussex that still fills an important gap in the local rail network. We're lucky the line exists at all; in the late 60s it was almost certainly going to be closed, but it never quite happened. And there's always the hope of running high speed rail along it at some point.

I've been working on this article for years now, and combed through a large collection of sources that talk about the line in depth. I think it's finally ready to ask the community if it's good enough to meet the FA criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I'll definitely do a full review of this one, but in the meantime as a placeholder I will drop in that there is some grammar disagreement in "this once allowed [....] but were removed for safety reasons"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I was wondering how to write that better, I've given it another go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mid-19th century fights between railway companies is something incredible to behold. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I intend to review this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 21:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since it's mentioned the origin of the name "Marshlink", is it known how the railway came up with this name?
It took me some time to find a source explaining the name, and I've not seen any source that mentions why the specific name was chosen. I can only assume it was some random marketing department somewhere that has been lost to the midsts of time
  • I'm struggling to see how we get to "The nearest equivalent is the A259 from Hastings to Folkestone via Rye" in the article from "In his speech, the Honourable Member for Rye referred to: the inadequacy of the roads (including the Folkestone to Honiton A259 trunk road) in the South East" in the source
This is one of those awkward things that I think needs to be fixed, but simply removing the text probably isn't the answer. We could mention the vehicle road from Ashford to Hastings, and cite any local Ordnance Survey map, but saying it's "closest" just from a map is going to invite criticism and accusations of original research. I'll have to think about this one some more.
  • From what I can tell, the Marshlink line is contiguous with the East Coastway line - shouldn't the connection between the two be mentioned in the route section unless I'm wrong?
I think it wasn't mentioned because it wasn't in the source given. I've dropped a source in now
  • Any information on how the difficulties in the Romney Marsh soil were mitigated
I've gone back to look at Gray's "The South Eastern Railway" and rewritten this. The principal problem was bad weather, and the specific term used in the source is "heel over", which is not the same as "tip over".
  • "and funded with a £2,800 capital." - this would not be grammatically correct in American English - is it okay in British English?
Copy edited
  • I don't think "The line is strategically important, as electrification and junction improvements would allow High Speed 1 trains direct from St Pancras International to Hastings." and "Despite its relative unimportance in the national rail network, electrification could allow High Speed 1 services to be extended to Hastings and Eastbourne." are entirely saying the same thing. It seems that the lead is saying that the line is unimportant but would still allow for the expansion of High Speed 1 services, while the body seems to be saying that the line is important because it would allow for expansion of High Speed 1
I've rewritten all this (both by addressing the comments here and other later on).

I think that's it from me for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick holding reply, most of these issues would benefit from a review of the original source material, most of which is held in reference-only books in my local library. Unfortunately, while I've got time to visit it today, Wednesday is early closing. I'll get back to you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As implied above, I did pop into the library today and checked a book source, that allowed me to address the comments you've made so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when this has passed the source review and I'll take another look. Hog Farm Talk 18:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I did that, and it completely screwed up the infobox formatting, rendering the article completely unreadable. (See history) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that type was not set. This works fine, although you could use another type if you prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to work well. I remember wrestling with the images on the table for listed structures some time ago. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "the line is then double-track" vs "After the tunnel, the line is double track" - inconsistent hyphen use
  • Doleham image caption needs a full stop
  • Ore station is linked in multiple places. Check for overlinking generally.
  • "On 5 August 1873, the SER were authorized" => "On 5 August 1873, the SER were authorised" (UK spelling)
  • "Work began on 8 April 1881 and opened to Dungeness on 7 December that year" => "Work began on 8 April 1881 and the line opened to Dungeness on 7 December that year" (it wasn't the work that opened)
  • "following in the Railways Act 1921" => "following the Railways Act 1921"
  • Winchelsea image caption needs a full stop
  • "The local member of parliament for Rye, Bryant Godman Irvine made" => "The local member of parliament for Rye, Bryant Godman Irvine, made"
  • "In 1969, Railway Magazine announced the remainder " => "In 1969, Railway Magazine announced that the remainder "
  • "and the figures did not consider" => "and that the figures did not consider"

That's what I got as far as "announced plans for British Rail to start electrification by 1995" - will pop back and do the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed these issues as reported so far, though in some cases I've gone back and copyedited the original sentence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2015, Amber Rudd, Member of Parliament for Hastings [....] The aim is [...] This requires" - verbs are in the present tense, but 2015 was nine years ago.
  • "In May 2018, the Department of Transport allocated £200,000 for further electrification design, with the possibility of completion in 2022 when the existing track life-expires." - 2022 was two years ago, has anything actually happened?
  • "In October, a proposal was chaired" - October of which year (2019, I think.....?). Again, has anything actually happened? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Again, has anything actually happened?" No, but more frustratingly, nothing's been reported in high-quality sources. Electrification and improvements have been talked about for decades, and I'm pretty sure we'll see parliamentary candidates campaigning about it at the next election, but like many things, the COVID pandemic slammed the brakes on everything and it got so far down the priority list, everyone (apart from a few local campaign groups) has forgotten about it. The only recent bit of news I can find is regular hourly services to Winchelsea and Three Oaks, which is covered in the article. We can only report what reliable sources talk about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ritchie333, have all of Chris's comments been addressed? If not, could you. If so, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, they've been addressed (either by fixing the article or expanding on the issue - in this case, that sources have dried up for the future of the line since Covid). ChrisTheDude Can you check your comments to see if there's anything else that needs doing? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I'll definitely re-visit this one tonight. The wife is going to be out and I don't think there's anything good on the telly so I should have plenty of time :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the nominator wasn't even here for a month, I don't think anyone should rush themselves... Thursday night telly or otherwise! ——Serial Number 54129 16:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given it another review and made a few little tweaks which it was easier to just make than to raise here but I have one remaining question. In May 2018, the Department for Transport allocated £200,000 for further electrification design, with the possibility of completion in 2022 when the existing track life-expires. - 2022 was two years ago, so has the track by now "life-expired"? If so, what did this lead to.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple answer is we don't know - all the source material has completely dried up. The simple fact is when I travelled on the line yesterday, it wasn't electrified. A search for sources doesn't come back with anything beyond 2022. So writing anything else is original research. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Hey Ritchie! My FA reviews are mostly prose/grammar and style pedantry. I do review most criteria but 1a tends to account for the majority of comments. These are usually nice and easy to fix though so a long list is not necessarily a reflection on your writing!

  • East Coastway line towards Eastbourne Surely Brighton is the primary destination in that direction?
Good question. The line is described in sources such as Mitchell / Smith to Brighton, but official network timetables and other documentation only extend to Eastbourne. As sources aren't consistent, I've gone with "Eastbourne and Brighton".
  • Services are provided by Southern. I wonder about the wisdom of including something as ephemeral as a TOC so prominently in the lead. But I suppose it should be mentioned and I can't think of a better way of doing it.
I had a look at some related articles, such as Hastings line, South Eastern Main Line, Chatham Main Line and Ashford–Ramsgate line, and while none of them are GA, let alone FA standard, they don't mention the service operator in the opening paragraph of the lead, so I've taken it out. (The inconsistency with caps in the titles might want sorting out at some point....)
  • and was considered strategically important how? To say it and not elaborate arguably makes it a peacock term.
Changed to "as a priority for military traffic" (as mentioned in the body, cited to Gray 1990)
  • painting the name on selected rolling stock It's not clear who the subject of this clause is (Tony1 calls it "noun-plusing") and it doesn't strictly make sense
Changed to "Some trains had the name painted on the side."
  • The change was one of several in the region, including the "1066 line" 1066 line was one of several changes in the region?
Changed to "The line from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings was branded the "1066 line" at the same time."
  • Services run from Platforms 1 and 2 southwards Would "southwards from Platforms 1 and 2" make more sense or is it just me? And are we confident in "Platform" as a proper noun?
Changed. Regarding caps, looking at a random source, it would appear correct.
  • freight-only branch line operated by Direct Rail Services pedantic, but doesn't DRS operate the trains, not the infrastructure?
According to "Who Wrote That", this text was added by Peter Shearan (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2005 (diff). While I don't have the source in front of me (see above comment to Hog Farm), I'm reasonably confident that fails verification, and so I've removed it.
I've now found a source for DRS and added in the "Services" section. Regarding the original point, you're correct, Southern run the trains, not the line and infrastructure which is run by Network Rail.
  • On 27 July 1846, the LBR and BLHR amalgamated with several other lines I think the exact date is possibly excess detail considering it's not directly related to the line
  • complained about a lack of sufficient progress redundancy? Sufficient progress wouldn't be a lack, a lack is clearly not sufficient.
Removed "sufficient" (sounds like Tony1 exercise)
  • was granted on 24 July 1882, with the line opening on 19 June That's not strictly a grammatical use of "with"; you're using it and the comma to connect two clauses (which also forces the tense change). Better to use a semicolon or split it into two sentences.
  • numerous Army camps were established since we haven't specified an army, I wouldn't treat it as a proper noun
Removed "Army" as I think it's obvious from context that "World War I" and "camps" is within a military context
  • On 23 February 1966, the Ministry of Transport confirmed the branch to New Romney would close to passengers, which it did on 6 March 1967 I think both exact dates is excess detail; suggest culling the announcement date to just the year.
I have to disagree. Closure dates, especially related to the Beeching Axe seem to be well-known in rail enthusiast circles; for example Waverley Route mentions not just the date, but the specific times. So I think these dates need to be there to meet 1b.
  • In 1969, Railway Magazine wrote the definite article is part of the RM's name—The Railway Magazine; also suggest linking
Done
  • taking a longer journey, buying their tickets same problem as "painting" above
Reworded
  • The line was single tracked between You've used the term multiple terms above but this is the first time it's linked; it's also hyphenated on every other use so far that I've spotted
Should be "single-track" with a dash
  • However, the Marshlink line continued to attract criticism "However" is a word to watch; I haven't criticised your use use of it so far but I feel this one is editorialising—you're disputing the preceding statement in Wikipedia's voice rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.
In this case, the only sourced information is an opinion from Norman Baker. So this can be easily fixed by removing the entire sentence and just leaving Baker's opinion to sit in a neutral manner.
  • Ashford International to Brighton, with Marshlink services only extending same ", with" problem as above
Changed to "Southern announced services to Brighton would terminate instead at Eastbourne".
  • The company defended the decision "defended" is editorialising (it implies that the decision was wrong/controversial in Wikipedia's voice without explicitly saying so). You could put the criticism before the defence or just use a more boring verb like "stated".
Changed to "the company said", the aim here is to present the POV of both the rail company and the local council.
  • would improve capacity between Eastbourne and Hastings, and removing a 2 carriage diesel service Sorry, several problems here: the numeral should be a word (MOS:NUMERAL), "two carriage" is a compound adjective and needs a hyphen, and you've changed tense for no apparent reason (I'd lose the comma and go with "remove" and you should be fine).
Done

Will be back with more later. Ran out of time before work! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell I've addressed everything so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the listed buildings section. Is there anything to say about the buildings on the line (listed or otherwise) as a group? Do we know if the railway employed an in-house architect? Do the buildings follow a consistent architectural style? I have a few books on railway architecture (actually, probably all the books) so if there's nothing in your sources I'll see if mine have anything.
A number of the stations were designed by William Tress as part of a group, so that can be mentioned, though I'd want to go and consult the book sources in the library to double-check if I can. The other buildings date from different time periods and were assessed at different times.
  • Spell out diesel multiple unit on first mention.
Done
  • Isn't DMU train (in the caption) a bit of a tautology?
Done
  • In November 2017, it was suggested [by whom?]
Clarified
  • Is Damian Green's statement noteworthy? Don't local politicians endorse any suggestion that plays well in their constituency, regardless of how plausible it is?
No, now that the "Future" section is more developed. (Amusingly, if I google for "Damian Green Marshlink", I get this FA review in one of the top ten hits).
  • Suggest moving the link on St Pancras to the first mention (if you keep Green's statement)
Having tidied this up, the first mention of St Pancras in "Future", where it is mentioned
  • This required remodelling Ashford would have required? I'm guessing nothing came of it?
What extra context does "would have" add? As I mentioned above, the problem is this is one of several proposed over the last 20 years or so that keeps cropping up with the same detail again and again.
  • That October, a proposal was chaired [by whom?] and what does "chair" a proposal mean?
The Marshlink Action Group; however, the information here (new platform at Ashford) can be taken from the Network Rail source, which is a bit more authoritative.
  • Both proposals required closing the Ore Tunnel I'm guessing the proposals would require major engineering work on the tunnel but it would be nice to elaborate on what that was if it's supported by the source material.
Unfortunately, the source says "Ore Tunnel closed for 6 months" without any further comment. I'll hunt around to see if any other sources are available, but this is one of the few reliable ones in this decade to say anything on the subject.
  • If we're being pedantic, you don't seem to be treating books consistently—some are cited in full in the footnotes but most use sfns linked to the bibliography.
No problems with being pedantic if it makes the article better. Done.

I think that's it it from me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review so far! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a thumb through the most comprehensive books. The best is Biddle's Britain's Historic Railway Buildings. The Queen's Road bridge gets a mention (I do like me a railway bridge! I sense my to-do list getting longer!) and there's a good write-up on Rye station. There's a fair few column inches on the Hastings line stations but nothing on the Marshlink ones as a group. If any of it's useful I'm happy to send it over but the picking are slimmer than I'd hoped. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot on Rye railway station (East Sussex), which is a GA like this one currently, though most of that comes from the same sources as this article uses. Still, might be worth adding a sentence or two from Biddle's source if it's not already mentioned here, plus it would be useful for expanding Hastings railway station, which could be improved to GA at some point, having an interesting history as a centre point between the SER and LBSCR's rivalry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see a bit more on the architecture if there are any sources that discuss it but I'm happy to take you at your word that you'll incorporate anything you find. I'll send over what I've got on Hastings and Rye stations in case it's useful for this or other projects. I made one copy edit from above that I assume you missed. I think that resolves everything for me so I'll support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Well over three weeks in and this has received a fair bit of attention, but no indications of support for promotion. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. That would be a shame, as far as I know I have addressed every comment on the review in one way or another. (I was going to comment on the lack of activity somewhere at some point, but wasn't sure how long I should have left it). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and get back to this in the next few days with a view to supporting. There are no glaring issues as far as I can see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the principal issue is there hasn't been an in-depth spot check of the sources. There's been a de-facto one where I spot-checked the sources and made a few corrections, but not from someone independent. I believe that's blocking at least one other support at the moment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the sourcing still under review and this now nearly three full months in, I'm archiving the nomination. I recommend to the nominator getting the sourcing hammered out on the talk page before renominating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Don't know how I have managed to miss this FAC till now. I know this line, as I have a good friend in Rye and use the route a fair bit. I am pleased to support the elevation of the article to FA. I have given the text two slow and careful readings and have found nothing to carp at. I note the comment about the lack of a source review, and will volunteer do one if nobody else steps up, though I am not the world's greatest source reviewer (see under useless and bloody awful). – Tim riley talk 21:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviewish

[edit]

Reviewing this version, is a spot-check needed? Southern is inconsistently capitalized. I see a fair bit of British local newspapers used, I presume we didn't unintentionally pick up any unreliable outfit? I kind of wonder about the usage of Hansard - using it to cite announcements by ministers seems fine, but I am not sure uses for statements of fact like #94 and #101 are OK. There are a lot of company-affiliated websites, press releases cited, but for technical information so I think it's fine. I confess that I can't tell much about the books cited, not being familiar with British railway literature - nothing jumped out as inappropriate but I wouldn't know any of them from a hole in the ground. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Southern is inconsistently capitalized." - apologies, I can't see where, can you specify?

I'm being dense - I've double checked all the web citations, and I can't see any obvious difference between the two. Sorry :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hansard is, in my view (and backed up at WP:RSP) okay in moderation, but the risk of straying into original research is significant, so should be taken with care. Taking the Hansard references in turn, using citations numbers from that diff:

  • [76] is an opinion of Bryant Godman Irvine, indicated as such (and backed with a secondary source, albeit a local newspaper)
  • [78] appears to be redundant and can be removed
  • [82] is an opinion of John Morris, Baron Morris of Aberavon
  • [83] and [84] are used to cite the general claim "The decision to close was delayed several times and continued for the rest of the decade." I'm going to remove this claim as it doesn't really tell us anything that the text around this section doesn't (and indeed, a large important section of the entire article concentrates on this fact - it was supposed to be closed by Beeching but never was).
  • [85] is an opinion of Michael Heseltine
  • [94] is an opinion of Charles Kerr, 2nd Baron Teviot, using the text "British Rail has tried to upgrade the railway between Ashford and Hastings, because Ashford is the town where everything is going to happen" to cite "By the 1980s, British Rail had started to modernise the route".
  • [95] is a discussion in parliament, citing the text "though electrification was rejected in preference to improving the South Eastern Main Line from Tonbridge to Ashford." This is factually incorrect - electrification of the SEML to Ashford took place in the 1960s, not the 1980s, and reviewing the source gives me the impression the debate was about both lines, and specifying that the Tonbridge - Ashford line was earmarked for improvements, but saying nothing about Ashford - Hastings.
  • [97] is an opinion of Roger Freeman, Baron Freeman
  • [101] is an opinion of Norman Baker, but I'd like to find another source for "However, the incoming franchisee is taking service improvement seriously, and South Central Ltd is investing £5 million in measures to improve the quality and perception of customer services." which is used to cite "In 2000, Southern took over management, and pledged to invest £5 million in improving customer service across its network."
  • [117] is a speech by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport on an accident on the Dungeness goods branch on 26 April 1984.

Of that list:

  • Those that are obviously an opinion of a specific MP, and attributed as such are probably okay.
  • Those that attempt to synthesise specific opinions into something more general are straying into original research, and going against FA criteria 1c.
  • That leaves the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. As this is a primary source close to a specific event, the chances of novel synthesis are low. It's probably okay, but it would be helpful if a contemporary news source could back this up.

A general note, is the Hansard reports are probably used as citations because the book sources focus on the 19th and early 20th century, and dry up around the 1980s. However, that also implies that the article should talk less about the line from this period, reflecting the general coverage of sources.

I'll go and fix the obvious problems now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the use of Hansard - I actually think that primary sources often are more reliable than news reports, as the latter often present the same information as the former but secondhand - but for certain claims we need more than "an MP claimed this". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've gone through and removed or re-sourced the Hansard citations that appear to be used beyond a basic personal view of something. Is there anything else specific that needs addressing? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK; spot-check (with plagiarism check included) on this version:

  • 18 Broken URL, and since it's almost eight years old I don't think we can put it in present tense.
I've replaced it with a current timetable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 21 This source doesn't seem to add anything, but #22 seems to say "half-hourly" not "hourly". The source also implies that the service may have been reintroduced.
The source appears to have changed. I don't believe half-hour services are possible given the layout of the track, and Southern's official timetable makes no mention of them existing at all. Consequently, I've moved this out of the current services section and into history. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 33 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 34 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 39 Can I have a copy of this source?
    This checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 42 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 43 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 45 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 49 Can I have a copy of this source?
    This checks out, although you may want to say in the article what the conclusion of this accusation was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 51 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 55 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 67 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 72 Don't think the "less than 10,000 passengers" thing is on the pages given.
The source says "Maps 1 - 9", which is this one. Map 1 marks the line as "between 5,000 and 10,000 passengers, while map 9 shows it as proposed for closure. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 86 Peyton does not explicitly say that the policy change was the reason for the review?
This source appears to be dead / unavailable at the moment. Bit worrying for Hansard. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is back up. This looks like a difference in interpretation over "in the light of his recent announcement about future railway policy. and whether or not that implies said announcement was directly linked to the line's future. I've rewritten this sentence to stick closer to what the source says, and explicitly attribute it as an opinion (good for Hansard, as previously discussed). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 111 OK
  • 120 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 123 Does "Class 171" (article) mean "diesel train" (source)?
Yes, the paragraph above says "Class 171 "Turbostar" Diesel Multiple Units", so I felt an additional description here was redundant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 126 Needs an archive

A bit uneasy that almost every accessible source has a discrepancy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, that does not sound good. Anything further since you last looked at it, or is this looking like a SR fail? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the sources I marked as "Can I have a copy of this source?" - for spotchecks, I insist on having a screenshot or photo of the pertinent page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I could have done all this last Saturday. I'll have to get back to you, the library has reduced its opening hours. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)A general comment about the book sources - they all came out of my local public library. Some can be loaned out, a number are in the "reference only" section. However, unless someone can get access to the same library (or a similar one) to independently get the books, then I can't see any easy way that any of the information can be verified, beyond me having a look myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't know where you live, but if you're in the UK the public libraries offer a service called "inter-library loans". For example, my local public library belongs to Oxfordshire County Council (OCC). and using my OCC library card I can borrow a book from any library in Oxfordshire (and also Reading, Berkshire), but if the book that I want isn't in stock in the libary that I visit, I can request it. OCC will then check their catalogue to see if there is a copy in any OCC library. If so, they'll transfer it to my local public library; if not, they'll check with other county councils until a copy can be located, which will then be sent to OCC and then on to my local public library. All this is done for a fee, and can take a few weeks. But it does mean that if the only copy in the UK happens to be in Ritchie333's local library, I can still request to borrow it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Afraid that I live on the continent. Going by Worldcat most of these books don't exist in my country, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way is probably for Ritchie to take photos of the requested pages and email them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also noting that that's exactly the same thing that reviewers and responders traditionally do... and are expected to do. It would be odd if a reviewer were able to abrogate responsibility for their use of sources simply by telling the source reviewer they must work it out for themselves! ——Serial Number 54129 12:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ritchie333, how is the source review coming along? Has Jo-Jo received photos of the requested pages yet? FrB.TG (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to get to the library and sort all of this out this week, but I haven't been in a position to do so. Hopefully, I will be able to get it sorted at a lunchtime next week. Unfortunately, a whole bunch of circumstances, not least the pandemic and then moving house have meant that I'm no longer in the position to pop down to the library in 5 minutes and get the answers. I hope you can be patient, but if not then the review might have to be closed as "can't verify". Hopefully it doesn't come to that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can wait. Obviously, the FAC coordinators get a vote too in this regard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the source review is successful and the nomination still needs eyes on the prose, let me know and I'll be happy to review. Anarchyte (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus I managed to get into the library and get camera copies of some of the sources used here. Send me an email and I'll reply with them attached. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay, the zipped camera copies are too big to send via email, I'll see if I can reduce the size down so they are still visible, but an acceptable size to send. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've sorted out the camera copies. Unfortunately, I didn't grab the right pages, so I'll have to go back and have another look. Unfortunately, I only seem to be able to get ten minutes of time in the library at the moment, which makes it difficult to grab the source material. Still, reviewing what I did get has allowed me to make a few corrections. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked off some things above as per the stuff you sent me. I'm afraid tho' that the incomplete figures from Mitchell & Smith 1987 can't be easily matched to a reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to get camera copies of Mitchell & Smith now, and I'll package them up and send them over in a mo. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Marshlink_line/archive1&oldid=1221951658"