Rail transport in Victoria edit
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially expanded, and believe it covers all relevant points of the subject. I have also referenced all relevant statements, and want to know if there is anything I have missed myself.
Thanks, Wongm (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Review by Peripitus edit
Just a few notes - not a subject I have any expertise in.
- The lead section is too short and should summarise the entire article per the notes in WP:LEAD
- The lead gives the impression that Victoria only used broad, narrow and standard gauge. Although the word narrow links to an article on that subject it's not comprehensive. A list by Tim Fischer tells me that both articles are missing details on the lines made with.
- "Starvation Narrow" - 4'0" - used in the 19th century only at Starvation creek
- "Rubicon Narrow" - 3'4 1/2" - Ribicon forest in the 19th/20th centuries
- "Lorne Log Narrow" - 3'1" - Lorne Pier to Mill
- and other lines of gauges: 3'0", 900mm, 2'6", 700mm, 2'3"
- The history section, for better flow, should come straight after the lead
- Lots of one-sentence paragraphs that need to be grouped into larger paragraphs following a common theme.
- add non-breaking spaces (& nbsp;) between numbers and the units to prevent them breaking over lines and becoming difficult to read.