Wikipedia:Peer review/Stapleton Road railway station/archive1

Stapleton Road railway station

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've been gradually working my way round railway station articles in Bristol, improving them to GA status. FA is the next obvious step, but I've never done anything FA related before. I thought that by bringing it here, I can get a general idea of the changes I may need to make to bring them to FA status. I think that this article is a fairly good representation of the articles, so thought I'd put my head above the parapet...

Thanks, -mattbuck (Talk) 14:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say I appreciate the reviews being posted here, sorry I haven't had much time to work on it, been a bit busy at work this week, hopefully Christmas will give me a chance to have more time. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from White Arabian Filly

"hourly service to Bristol Parkway" shouldn't there be a comma in there somewhere?
Don't think so - where do you suggest? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- After the "Bristol Parkway" part, since it then goes on to list another stop. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Oxford comma, sure, why not. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"1 mile 50 chains". I have no idea what chains are, but am assuming a measurement. If so, it could be wikilinked.
At the end of the sentence there are ref [4] and [note 1]. The latter explains it. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Express Sprinter and Pacer, is it accepted to put trains' names in italics like ships' names? If not then it could be put in normal type.
You know I've never actually thought about it before. Looking at the latest issue of RAIL magazine, an article about Aventra EMUs seems to go for standard text, so I'll have a go at modifying all articles to be similar. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done and in all similar articles for GWR stations. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the history section the pictures could be spaced out throughout the section rather than grouped at the top. On mobile I had to scroll down a good ways to get to the actual text.
Sorted, though to be fair the images don't at all match the paragraphs. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also section could include a couple more items.
Such as? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Other railroads similar to this one, and connected topics that may not be wikilinked. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  I've added a link to MetroWest (Bristol). I don't think "similar railroads" is really applicable here, the station design is fairly standard, it's not an unusual one like the two-level Tamworth or the triangular Shipley. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, it looks like it could make FA to me.😊

White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 17:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodw

After all the help and advice you have given me I thought I ought to take a look and have a few questions and comments:

~~In the lead "Stapleton Road became one of Bristol's busiest station," shouldn't that be plural ie "stations"?~~
Done. How did that get missed? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In description "however both have the southern 100 metres (110 yd) fenced off." any particular reason & is this permanent or temporary?
It's permanent, but nowhere can I find a decent citation for it. The reason, I assume, is that 200m trains don't stop there anymore, so they can save some money on platform maintenance and avoid people having to run 200m when the train stops where they're not. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In services we have "As of the December 2013 timetable" is this still current? Is it something which changes on a regular basis and therefore becomes difficult to maintain? We also have fare prices from 2012 - same questions apply?
The dates are there because of WP:DATED. With some 2,500 articles on open UK railway stations, it is near-impossible to keep them all updated three times a year (fares change in January, timetables change in May and December). Omitting the date will give the impression that the information is current. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In history where is/was New Passage Pier - are we still in Bristol or WsM/Avonmouth or somewhere? Having just decided not to be lazy and look this up for myself I presume this is New Passage, but perhaps could be explained.
Bit north of Severn Beach. I need to write that article sometime. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article created as a stub, but it would be useful to have an explanation. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation added here and at Lawrence Hill, Filton and Patchway. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~British Rail is wikilinked on the second occurrence not the first.~~
Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was slightly confused by the chronology when we had rebranding in 2015 followed by a contract in 2010 & then "by 2005..."
I agree it's not exactly ideal, but it doesn't make sense as its own sentence. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References - if this is going to FAC I expect page numbers will be requested for books (eg Baker, Oakley, MacDermot, Maggs etc) where multiple references are made this could be to different pages so it may be worth using sfn or similar.
Sorted Oakley and Maggs; but the rest I don't have with me here. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: Now added page numbers to the others. Is it worth using {{rp}} when the referenced page range is only 4 pages? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought a four page range should be fine - but which one are we talking about?— Rod ^talk 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: - Oakley [6], [23]; Maggs [26]. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All look fine to me.— Rod ^talk 19:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are useful.— Rod ^talk 18:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]