Talk:City and South London Railway/GA Review
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
GA Review
Sorry it has taken so long for someone to review this article, but better late than never. There are numerous issues that must be fixed to promote this article, although the writing is quite good.
1) The footnotes are all formatted incorrectly. All punctuation, including he period and parentheses must come before the footnote. Example: This is correct footnoting.[1] Footnotes must all be at the end of the sentence as well. Sentences with more than one footnote should have one of them eliminated.
- Actually, not all footnotes need to be at the end of the sentence, depending on context, though it is a good guideline. -Oreo Priest 09:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- After reading the WP policy on footnotes, I discovered this. Personally though, I think that unless something is controversial, footnotes should still be at the end of the sentence in order to avoid clutter.Zeus1234 13:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
2) I would recommend giving the article a good copyedit. A number of sentences are too long or are missing commas and other grammatical elements. For example the following sentence needs a comma after 'implemented' The use of electricity to power trains had been experimented with in the previous decade and small scale operations had been implemented but the C&SLR was the first major railway in the world to adopt it as a means of motive power.
3) You need a reference section that lists the published books used for the article in bibliographical format.
4) The legacy section is original research, and unless you can find a reference for it, should be deleted completely.
5) The lead is too short. It should probably be at least three times as long as it currently is. It needs to 'mirror' what is written in the article, that is be a summary of what the article says. At the moment, it one describes what the railway is, and that it became part of the tube. You need to fill in the intermediate years with information from the article.
I will put this article on hold, and if the required changes are made, will promote it. Zeus1234 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I have started the process by addressing points 1 and 3. I have moved footnotes generally to the end of sentences as recommended. In accordance with WP:FOOT, some mid-sentence references remain in place because they relate just to the immediately proceeding information not the complete sentence. A couple of double references also remain - either because different parts of the sentence are substantiated by different sources or because a second source provides additional reference information.
- I will address points 2 and 5 shortly and I expect I can find a reference for the legacy section as well. --DavidCane 01:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- You are right about wikipedia saying footnotes are allowed in the middle of the sentence (although I personally prefer them at the end). Make sure you fix the references in parentheses and the mid-sentence ones that should be after a comma. Zeus1234 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that the latest edits have now fixed the remaining comments on references. The lead section has been expanded and the suggested copyedit has been completed. Also found two references regarding the lead that the C&SLR gave to the subsequent development of tube railways in London. Although, by implication, this could logically be extended to deep tube tunnels worldwide, I have reduced the scale of the C&SLR's influence and legacy to just refer the the London Underground, as the references provided do not make this particular claim.
- Any further suggestions? --DavidCane 02:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is one final thing that must be done, and I'm sorry for not pointing it out before. Now that there is a bibliography, you can simplify all the books in the footnotes to only include, author, year of publication and page numbers. The newspaper references do not need changing. YOu can look at the article Lingbao School (which I wrote), if you want to see how the references are formatted. Please note that this is only a guideline to formatting. You can format them any way you wish, as long as most of the supplementary information already contained in the bibliography is removed. After this is done, the article will be promoted.Zeus1234 08:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The references have now been streamlined to just show name and book page or pages. DavidCane 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is one final thing that must be done, and I'm sorry for not pointing it out before. Now that there is a bibliography, you can simplify all the books in the footnotes to only include, author, year of publication and page numbers. The newspaper references do not need changing. YOu can look at the article Lingbao School (which I wrote), if you want to see how the references are formatted. Please note that this is only a guideline to formatting. You can format them any way you wish, as long as most of the supplementary information already contained in the bibliography is removed. After this is done, the article will be promoted.Zeus1234 08:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- You are right about wikipedia saying footnotes are allowed in the middle of the sentence (although I personally prefer them at the end). Make sure you fix the references in parentheses and the mid-sentence ones that should be after a comma. Zeus1234 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- ^ g