Wikipedia:Peer review/London Underground A60 and A62 stock/archive1

London Underground A60 and A62 stock edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to make it a Featured Article. I need to know how much more I need to do with this article.

Thanks, Marianian^(talk) 05:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a train guy, but I guess I'll give it a shot.

Intro seems to swing around - is this a particular design? Or a particular manufactured group? Reading further it seems to be both?
'however, the stock provides more seats than the S Stock, which began replacing the A Stock from 31 July 2010' <-- a number of lines like this could be worded better; for example, I would have written this as something like 'however, the A Stock still provided more seating than its successor (the S Stock in 31 July 2010)'.
The Design section is a little disjointed like that. For example, the width factoid gets an entire line while it would have been natural to mention that its 'transverse' seating design made it the widest.
How did they come to be replaced? When was the decision made, who made it? That's interesting.
Were they all scrapped? That seems to be implied in the final section, but maybe some were sold off and turned into homes or artworks or something. (If any were turned into art, that would be very worth mentioning.)

--Gwern (contribs) 18:37 24 December 2010 (GMT)

Note on title: I believe that "Stock" should be "stock" per MOS. Brianboulton (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I love riding trains, visiting train stations, and looking at train maps. However, I know little about the trains themselves and how they work. I find this article interesting, yet for a variety of reasons it is not yet ready for WP:GAN let alone WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

I agree with Brian that "stock" should be lower-case in the article title.

I agree with Gwern that the writing is uneven in places. When you finish making substantive changes to the article, you might seek copyediting help via WP:GOCE/REQ.

Quite a few paragraphs in the article lack sources and therefore do not meet the WP:V guidelines. For example, the first and third paragraphs of the "Design" section are without sources as are the first and third paragraphs of the "Operation" section. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every unusual claim, every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every paragraph (except usually in the lead). If a single source covers an entire paragraph, the citation goes at the very end of the paragraph. If a paragraph has a citation or citations but they are in the middle of the paragraph, the final sentences of the paragraph are not covered by them and may need their own citation(s). For example, the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the "Operation" section makes an unusual claim (last stock on the London Underground without an automated public address system) but provides no source for it. And surely a pointed claim like "thus being dubbed as the only proper train on the system" needs a source.

The lede should be a summary of the whole article rather than an essay-type introduction. My rule of thumb is to try to include in the lede at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything in the lede that is not developed in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.

The Manual of Style frowns on extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sections because they create a choppy look and feel. Two ways to cure the problem are to merge shorties or to expand them. For example, the third and fourth paragraph of the "Operation" section could be merged.

The red and green check boxes in the "Other areas of operation" table are apt to pose problems for visually impaired readers using screen-reading devices. Better would be to use text, "yes" and "no", than the colored images.

The colour coding in the A60 stock table poses the same problem. People who are colour blind or visually impaired in other ways may not be able to access the coloured part of the information in the table. One solution to this problem would be to use a text code as well as a colour code and a key explaining the codes in text as well as colour. An example of how this works can be seen in quite a few featured lists, List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations, for example, where a key above the main table uses simple symbols as well as colours.

I'm not sure what is going on with the two-column section immediately below the biggest table. For example, one subhead says, "Renumberings (in italics):", but nothing appears in italics. Also, the two columns bump into one another on my computer screen.

The 737 line of the two-column section has an embedded external link to WorldCat. No embedded links to external sites should appear in the main text of a Wikipedia article. Instead, create inline citations to external sources that support claims in the text.

WP:MOSBOLD suggests limiting bolding to a few special cases. The bolding of the stock names in the "Development and intoduction" section would be better in italics. Ditto the A in Amersham.

Use p. as the abbreviation for single pages and pp. for multiple pages. For example, citation 3 should list p. 36.

Link "destination blind" to Rollsign on first use in the main text (but not in the head)?

Wikipedia articles use double quotation marks rather than single. Thus, throughout the article, items like 'outer suburban' should be changed to "outer suburban".

Images

The category-check tag on the description page of the lead image should be addressed.

File:A60 interior Baker Street 2010 2.JPG overlaps two sections, which is a Manual of Style no-no. Perhaps it would be better in the "Operation" section.

The London Transport Portal belongs in 'External links" if used at all.

You might find it helpful to look at Featured List articles about trains and at train articles listed at WP:FA#Transport.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback so far. The changes implemented so far are as follows:

Page notations have been revised and as per WP:MOS, the bold in-line text are now in italics instead.

Along with quote improvements, the unverifiable claim of it being the "proper train" has been removed, it now refers to similarities with National Rail stock instead. Also, Destination Sign is now wikilinked to Rollsign.

The footnotes system of the roster table has been revised with symbols supplementing colours, and re-numberings also made part of the revised scheme. The key to legend is now above the detailed table. In addition the WorldCat link has been removed, having been mentioned many times. The two column footnote table has been reverted to one column only.

Ticks and crosses have been replaced by wordings only.

Finally, and most importantly, as per WP:MOS the page has been moved to London Underground A60 and A62 stock

The London Transport Portal link appears to be hooked to a template which is used in many LT-related pages. Removal may upset some users but I may try. Also, the lead picture is apparently too dark so it may have to be reverted to the one at Pinner, which had better lighting. I don't know why one editor chose the dark Chesham version. I'll keep you up to date as the edits continue.--Marianian^(talk) 17:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]