Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester and Bolton Railway/archive1

Manchester and Bolton Railway

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would appreciate constructive feedback on where to go next. I'd like to take it to GA status, its a fairly narrow subject so I don't anticipate much interest from other editors, as specific knowledge is required on this subject.

Any comments on grammar, referencing, layout, content - much appreciated.

Thanks, Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should be more than one paragraph per WP:LEAD. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way

- Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs are usually in numerical order, so fix ... to become the "Company of Proprietors of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Navigation and Railway Company".[3][2]

- Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused - how did the first Act of Parliament not allow them to build a rail line so that In 1832 this company obtained an Act that allowed it to build the railway.[4]?? This needs to be clarified.

- Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another confusing passage A difficult section of the railway was the two tunnels at Farnworth. Each single-bore, and 295 yards (270 m) long, the bore on the down line is slightly larger than on the up line - a feature that remains to this day.[9] Difficult in what sense (presumably to construct)? Are there dimensions of the two bores (so the reader can learn the size of each)? Presumably these were drilled / excavated by hand - wouldn't it be usual for them not be exactly the same size? I am also not clear what would be down vs. up on such a line - towards Farnworth or away? Down is downhill presumably?

- Difficult in that tunnelling at that time in history was labour intensive, and probably quite dangerous. I would hope the reader would infer this from the era the railway was constructed in. No explanation is given for the tunnel bores, so I cannot expand on that. Its just a curious feature. I have inserted wikilinks to up and down lines. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I have now expanded upon this. I plan to go into more detail when I find better sources. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several one or two sentence paragraphs and a few very short sections that break up the flow of the article. I would combine these with others or perhaps expand them. Does "Services" really need its own two sentence section? Could this be part of Fares and services?

- Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a reference: On 11 June 1838, a new pricing structure was introduced, with first class costing 2s, 1s 6d, and 1s. Passenger's tickets were taken while travelling, presumably by a ticket inspector. Presumably sounds like the dreaded WP:NOR

- I'll have to get back to you on that reference (could take a while as I would need to revisit the library which is quite far away), I have removed the ticket inspector line. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Found the reference and moved it - it now encompasses the paragraph, since all that info is on the same page of the source material. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are the company's lines still in use today (sounds like it from the tunnel quote). Could a photo of the tunnels be included?

- That's a good idea, I cycle there regularly so will try and get a shot of the northern end. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There's an image here but it isn't great. You can see the difference in sizes though. I'll get a much better photo than that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is pretty close to GA. Would definitely need a copyedit for FA.

- Ok, let me know what you think of the changes and if you're happy, once this review is closed I'll ask for it to be copyedited. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Extremely helpful thanks :) Considering I only created it to help get the canal article to FA I think its quite heart warming that someone else considers it a possible GA :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]