Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Talyllyn Railway

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 23 June 2008 [1].

Talyllyn Railway edit

Nominator(s): User:ChrisTheDude, User:Tivedshambo, User:Gwernol
previous FAC (00:11, 14 April 2008)

I just stumbled across this article after visiting the railway on holiday with my son, who's a big steam fan, and taking a picture which I thought could be added to WP. When I saw the quality of the article (and the existing pictures, which were much better than mine!) and that it had narrowly missed out on FA once before, I thought I'd give it a helping hand so have gone through and given it a pretty ruthless copy edit, which I think now brings it up to FA standard. I await your comments...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Co-nominators: User:Tivedshambo and User:Gwernol.[reply]

Articlestats:

Gwernol 377
Tivedshambo 205
Jotel 52
ChrisTheDude 46

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination query resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are Gwernol and Tivedshambo co-nominators? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They've both stated that they support my action in nominating the article, does that fit the definition of "co-nominators".....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stand as co-nominator of the article. I nominated it the first time we tried for FA status a couple of months ago. I believe Chris' copy edits have significantly improved the readability and flow of the article, which was perhaps the most significant reason it fell short last time. I believe Talyllyn Railway is now a viable FA candidate and would love to hear further opinions of reviewers. Thanks, Gwernol 14:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When principle editors are involved in the FAC and helping respond to FAC queries, they are typically listed in the opening paragraph as co-nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm also happy to add my support as co-nominator. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note; This nomination doesn't appear to have been discussed on article talk or with the principle contributors, Tivedshambo (talk · contribs) and Gwernol (talk · contribs). If they aren't ready, it should be withdrawn; please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC.

Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination.

I can't speak for Gwernol, but personally I am pleased that this article has been improved and nominated, and I sincerely hope this nomination is not withdrawn, simply because of a mere technical error in the procedure. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I genuinely was not aware that I needed to discuss the nomination before making it, I've never previously nominated an article for which I wasn't the principal/sole contributor. Tivedshambo appears to be OK with it, and Gwernol has posted on my talk page thanking me for my work on it, but I will ask him/her to post here confirming that he/she is also happy for the FAC to proceed...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for the FAC to continue. Although I haven't edited the article in a month or so, I have been reviewing Chris' edits and it was clear that he intended to resubmit the article. If I hadn't thought the article was ready to try again, I'd have discussed this with Chris. His recent improvements have considerably improved the quality of article and I think it is now much closer to featured quality. Gwernol 09:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The line in fiction" → "In fiction" perhaps?

Gary King (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • All the images are right-aligned, to prevent cramming it might be best to prune a few and align some to the left. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have moved some of the images about, hopefully it now looks more aesthetically pleasing ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 85 Matthew Hawkins Cultural Perceptions.. is lacking a last access date.
otherwise sources look good. Link checker tool says all the websites work. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I peer reviewed this and just reread it (and just peer reviewed the related List of stations and halts on the Talyllyn Railway). I find it to meet the FA criteria. My only comment is that there are slight discrepancies between the distances in the list and those in this article. Is the line 7.35 miles (11.83 km) long (per the list table) or 7.25 miles (11.67 km) per the lead of this article? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - thanks for spotting that, the correct length is 7.25 miles. The lead has Boyd as a source for this, and I've confirmed it in Mitchell and Eyres, so I updated the List article with source. Best, Gwernol 03:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support COI - I did the GA review for this article. It appears to have been significantly improved since then. Three minor points: 8,000 tons has no conversion, 4,000 tonnes is a different unit and no conversion, and there are too many howevers for my taste. Pob lwc, y Ddraig Goch ddyry gychwyn jimfbleak (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thanks Jim, I've updated the unit measurements to use the convert template, which provides metric equivalents. The "tonnes" was a typo, though given the (non) accuracy of the measurement in the original source it has little practical impact :-) I've also removed a few of the "howevers" which does improve the flow of the prose, without impacting the meaning. Hwyl, Gwernol 12:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose looks alright. Pity about the messy left-side images. TONY (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about images Could you provide more details for the source "Talyllyn Century, by J.I.C. Boyd" that is listed on many of the image pages? Is this a book? If so, could you please list the publication information, etc.? Also, the license listed for all of these Boyd images is "PD" because the life of the author plus seventy years has expired. However, since the author is unknown on all of them and since for a few of them it is unfortunately mathematically possible that the person could have lived long enough that the seventy years are not up, I don't think this license can be used for all of them. (I am slowly learning all of the ins and outs of these rules, so please correct me if I am wrong.) Awadewit (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:Tal-Y-Llyn Dolgoch Abergwynolwn 1951.jpg - Is there a known author and date for this image? It seems like there might be more information, according to the accompanying documentation. If so, please fill out summary information for the image. Thanks!
On this specific image - I've searched through my library and can't find this exact photo anywhere. The original website has no more details that I can find, so I think we're stuck with what we have on this one - no author and a date of 1951. Gwernol 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I filled in the image summary as such. Awadewit (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Awadewit. Yes, Talyllyn Century is a book - its one of the sources for the article. I'll happily update the images with a full citation, that's a good idea. On the question of public domain, some of these images may be in a gray area. Are there specific ones you believe are not public domain? Thanks, Gwernol 13:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is we don't really know, since we don't know the artist. I was then asking myself, "are we supposed to be lenient or not here?" and I assume we are not because copyright is important. Assuming the photographer was 20 years old and lived to be 80, the following images would not be in the public domain (this is not totally unreasonable, in my view):

Can you use the the "published before 1923" license for some of these? Please note that I'm not trying to strip the article of images - I'm just trying to find the right licenses for them. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps someday we will find more details or eventually we can add it back in, after several more years have passed. :) (Note to self in the future!) Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:DolgochStation1894.jpg, this was taken by one "H.S. Bristowe". Unfortunately I can't yet establish a definitive date of death for Mr. Bristowe. It probably couldn't by licensed under Template:PD-US-1923-abroad since I don't know when it was first published outside the US, and its likely that it wouldn't have been published in the US before 1923. However, I believe this is likely still public domain, but we may need to remove this one too?
  • Are there people on Wikipedia who try to find this information? I thought there were. Is this picture important enough that we should hunt them down? Awadewit (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely appreciate you bringing up these issues. I want to get them right too. Best, Gwernol 14:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the 1894 image of Dolgoch station with one I took in 2006, which I have released under the GNU Free Documentation license. The 1894 picture was mainly illustrative of the station, so the modern image is as good for that purpose. I hope to eventually be able to establish that the 1894 image is public domain or otherwise usable, but I agree that until then it should be removed from the article. Thanks again for your vigilence, Gwernol 15:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support I've now read the article and it is well-written, interesting, and comprehensive. There were so many fascinating tidbits weaved through the article and everything was explained very well. I just have one question:

  • Cozens, Lewis (1948). The Tal-y-llyn Railway. author. - What does this mean?

I will change to "support" just as soon as we finish up all of the image issues above. Awadewit (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cozens self-published his book back in 1948. This was before there was a large market for books on narrow gauge railways, or publishers willing to publish them. Usually self-published books are not reliable sources, but in this case, Cozens is an acknowledged expert in the field and his works, especially those on the Talyllyn and Corris railways are important historical works that have been subsequently reprinted and widely referenced, so I believe this is an acceptable exception. Best, Gwernol 15:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see - he has published other works on the subject - I believe that meets WP:SPS. However, could we somehow make the actual reference itself a little clearer? I found it confusing. This article is using Chicago style, so I checked my Chicago MOS and I believe it should say "Privately printed" instead of "author". Awadewit (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks. Gwernol 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woodcock, G. George (September 1938). "The Tal-y-llyn Railway". Railway Magazine 83. - Do we have page numbers for this article?
Yes, I have a copy of this issue of Railway Magazine - details updated. Gwernol 18:08, 22 June 2008 (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/Talyllyn_Railway&oldid=1126595688"