Jump to content

Talk:East Lancashire Railway (1844–1859)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Comments

  • History
    • I think there needs to be another section here explaining that the ELR was formed through an amalgamation of a number railway companies. This could be called something like "establishment" and the next three sections could be third level sections under that.
    • It would be useful to have a more detailed description in the text of the route of each of the railways.
      • I've added a little about the route of the MB&RR, but the map should suffice for now. I will probably add geographical features to it in the future. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be useful to give some more dates for the various acts of parliament that were obtained.
  • History: Background
    • As this section is about the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal company's railway (the Manchester and Bolton Railway), I think that should be the title of the section The next section provides a link to the Manchester and Bolton Railway article which should be given here.
      • Changed the title to 'Manchester and Bolton Railway' and included a link at the end of the para. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the name is given without punctuation in the same was as the article on the canal, "Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal" should have a comma after Manchester.
      • See discussion here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do think the comma is needed here as the company seal shown on the Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal article does include it.--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Going to have to disagree on this one. The canal has many variations on its name through history, its best to settle upon a single one and stick with it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The background needs to cover the bills and acts that the company put to parliament to achieve royal assent for the works:
      • You should indicate that the act of parliament was a private act.
      • At a minimum, the first bill presented to parliament should be stated - which, from a check in the London Gazette appears to have been in 1830. This could be linked in the references using the {{LondonGazette}} template - e.g. "No. 18736". The London Gazette. 19 October 1830.
      • Should state that the original name was the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Navigation and Railway.
        • Actually the name of the company was "Company of Proprietors of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Navigation and Railway Company", but the railway, so far as I have been able to tell in my research in both the canal and M&B articles, is almost always referred to as the Manchester and Bolton Railway. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When did construction take place?
    • "This was mainly because of objections from local mine owners who would have lost access to the canal – and therefore their supply route – and who also would not have had branch railways built for them." is awkward.
      • It is a long sentence, but I'm uncertain how to convey the same information more succinctly. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was the new alignment and when was the new act obtained?
      • The M&B article demonstrates this but it isn't relevant to the ELR story - the influential factor in the ELR's construction is the lack of a Bury branch from the M&B railway. I could possibly remove the information about mine owners and the realignment? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • How was this influential? Did it affect the viability of the railway, its income, etc. --DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Influential in that a large mill town only a few miles from Manchester still lacked a railway. I have added a line to the article to state as such. I can't see me finding a reference for that, its difficult to reference the fact that something didn't exist, but I can make things clearer by demonstrating the first railway connections into the town, which were in 1846 (elr) and 1848 (m&lr). Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Put the reason for the objection (the length of the tunnel) before stating that the engineer objected to it?
  • History: Manchester, Bury and Rossendale Railway
    • Is it likely that Thomas Wrigley and John Robinson Kay will have articles written for them? If not, remove the redlinks.
      • Given the interest in local history in the Greater Manchester area I have a feeling that someone will be able to make them blue links, if you wouldn't mind I'd rather leave them there for a while as the article gathers interest - if they aren't touched, I'll remove them in a few weeks? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a railway connection from Bury and the Rossendale district". Presumably this connection was from Manchester. Need to define the MB&RR abbreviation used later in the section. This is also given as the MBRR.
      • This is more or less directly from the source. I believe there was some arguing over exactly where the railway would go, south of Bury, but I have yet to find a good source. I may be able to resolve this on the weekend. I have added the (MB&RR) that was missing. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would the MB&RR's facilities better than the M&LR's?
      • Unknown - directly from the source. Presumably a better service than the Manchester and Leeds, but to state that would be original research. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed I think. I think the 'better facilities' were because the M&LR's line went up to Castleton, a considerable deviation to get to Manchester. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Manchester and Bolton Railway is linked first in this section rather than the background section.
    • Refs 9 and 10 should be swapped around to match the order of the original and current values.
      • Can you clarify what you mean? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ref 9 is the reference for the CPI inflation data and Ref 10 is for the original sums approved. The original sum comes before the current value so the reference for it should as well. Incidentally, the source "House of Commons 1847, p. 32" is incomplete. Is this a book? It is not listed in bibliography.--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Manchester and Leeds Railway is given in full after the abbreviation has been used earlier in the section; could just be abbreviated.
    • The ", however the MBRR project was unaffected by this connection." in the final sentence does not seem to be related to the first section. What is the connection mentioned and how could it have affected the MB&RR?
      • The M&LR did get their extension to Bury, but it was at Knowsley Street railway station (actually that article says the L&YR opened it, I'll check that). What the sentence means is that even though that railway got to Bury, the MB&RR project went ahead regardless. I think there is more to this story, and I'll try and clarify it this weekend. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History: East Lancashire Railway
    • BBA&CER should be defined first when the Blackburn, Burnley, Accrington and Colne Extension Railway is first mentioned.
    • Presumably the Blackburn and Preston Railway was taken over before it was constructed, which is why it is a redlink. Is it likely to ever have an article of its own?
      • Almost certainly it will. I experienced a similar redlink when I did the MB&B canal article for the Haslingden Canal - I haven't got round to doing one for the B&PR because I've recently had 4 articles at GAN and one still at FAC :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto, the BBA&CER.
    • Was the Blackburn and Preston railway planned to run through Preston to Farington or did the route stop at Farington short of Preston - wondering about its name.
    • To which railway did the Preston to Burnley route belong?
      • Have clarified this in the text, the map also helps a lot understanding these connections. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History: Construction
    • This section is a bit short on references, e.g:
      • The name of the contractors
        • I'll have a look but this level of detail is usually very difficult to obtain. I think the sources used may contain some information, indeed I do seem to recall seeing such, but I thought it was too much detail. Usually such small contractors are a couple of blokes employing a load of navvies. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I appreciate that the sub-contractor's names will be hard to find it was the source for the name of the main contractor, I was interested in.--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The cost of construction (should also repeat the reference for the current value)
      • The quote from William Harrison (who is he?)
        • The Wells reference does not say, but I am presuming it is this fella. Unfortunately the Wells book lacks an index. I will be able to check if it is in any local libraries. I've removed it for now as it doesn't really offer much, and replaced it with a quick line about the Manchester Guardian. I don't feel its worth putting the entire MG quote in as its really just a quick quip. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Source for Pasley's satisfaction with the line and the shortage of workers (what was the implication of being charged with breaking the Sabbath?)
    • You state that construction of the Clifton to Rawtenstall section was completed quickly. When did construction start? What is the distance between these two points?
    • Some of the stations mentioned in the list weren't opened with the line but later.
    • Although there is a nice picture of the viaduct, there is no mention of it or any other infrastructure in the text.
    • As Pasley is looking to the right WP:MOS say he should be on the left side of the screen so that he is looking into the page rather than out. In fact, as he just surveyed the railway and wasn't instrumental in its promotion or construction, does his image need to be here. The reference in the caption should be moved to the text.
      • He's there given the lack of contemporary images of the railway. I could quite easily fill the article with modern images of the lines, but I prefer to add things like this to give a sense of history. I'm currently trying to get hold of the original ELR badge/logo as I did with the M&BR article. Pasley was quite an important person though, and anyone familiar with railways (I'm not particularly, this is local history for me) would, I think, find him worthy of inclusion. I've moved the reference to 'inspector-general' into the body of the article. The other reference - shouldn't that remain as all quotes have to be separately referenced? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you need to provide a reference in the caption and text to his being the inspector-general of railways as that is in his own article. On the quote, I would put that in the text and reference it there.--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map is very nice but it is pushed away from the construction section by the Pasley image. The map could be improved by showing the various stages of construction and the location of the stations mentioned in the text.
      • Big job that - it takes a while to draw such things so it may take a bit of time, especially given the extra research required. I do agree though, its just an afterthought right now as its more or less a copy of the M&BR map. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History: Expansion
    • The first sentence is not needed as the opening was covered in the previous section.
      • Well the first date is a quote (actually I'll check that, may be a typo as it says 28th), the second date is the survey, and the date in the expansion section is the opening. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The opening date is given as 25 September 1846 in this section and 28 September in the construction section. Which is correct?
    • "In two years the ELR grew from a railway authorised to build 14 miles (23 km) of railway into one with the authority to build 50 miles (80 km) of railway." Two uses of railway in the same sentence but with different meaning. Suggest add "company" after the first and change the second to "route".
      • Fixed by replacing first instance of 'railway' with 'company' Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How did the railway achieve the additional authority? when was the act of parliament?

--DavidCane (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments so far I think you've so far provided a very detailed review, and I have much to think about. I'd like to request that, certainly when you've completed your review, you place the article on hold. I'm confident I can address most of your points within a few days, some may take longer however. I agree with your comments re restructuring the headings, and that'll probably be something I'll address once I've responded to the remaining questions.

I've answered the ones I can at this time, and left the ones I can't for now. I'll try and get those done this weekend. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments

  • History: Expansion (cont'd)
    • The figures for the week ending 5 February 1848 were almost double the amount for the same week in 1847 not for the whole of the previous year as the sentence is currently phrased. I would put in the actual £564 5s 10d figure for 1847. I would also bring the two current values into a single bracket with a single reference.
      • Fixed the annual/week thing. I'd rather not put the actual figure in for the previous year unless I had figures for all years. It is however very nearly double. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which railway owned the Midland line to Leeds and Bradford?
    • A map of all of these lines would be very useful.
    • The chronology is a bit out of sequence with reference to the acquisition of the LO&PR mentioned after the extension to Lostock Hall. Also the purchase of the Blackburn and Preston Railway is mentioned here again, having already been mentioned in the East Lancashire Railway section
    • Suggest that the last three sentences of this section be redrafted and merged to avoid the choppy tone.
  • History: Clifton Junction
    • This whole section is problematic.
      • Ok, have a look over it now. I've rejigged the entire layout. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again the chronology jumps back to a point earlier than the end of the previous section.
      • I've made some big changes to the entire history section, hopefully its more readable but I await your input - its always good to hear criticism from someone who isn't involved with the article, and can spot mistakes I can't. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to add, I don't think stepping back in the timeline is important for this section. In its own right it could almost be an article itself, I think it's best for it to have its own section. I have changed the tense slightly so the reader knows that we're stepping back a few years. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The alternative route between Manchester and Leeds was an alternative to what other route - presumably a route of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway?
    • You need to explain that the Manchester to Bolton line through Clifton Junction was owned by the L&YR, hence its right to impose new operating procedures.
    • Need to explain the significance of the taking of the tickets at the junction.
      • The inference should be drawn from "for the purpose of keeping regularly and balancing punctually the accounts of the two companies" in the text Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • References needed for the two quotes. Also one uses single quotes and the other double.
    • The letter to the Times was sent by Hacking after the Clifton Junction incident but it is mentioned in the article before the description of the incident, putting Hackings assertion regarding the L&YR's motives out of context. This should be moved after the description of the incident.
    • You say that the incident lasted several hours although Hacking states only "upwards of an hour".
    • The ELR making a pro-rata payment for journeys taken on the L&YR's tracks is likely to have been the pre-dispute method of sharing the income over that section as well. That certainly seems to be the implication from Hacking's letter to the Times.
    • The last sentence, starts "Although relations between the two had hardly been amicable..." which seems to place in it the past with relation to the incident although the dates mentioned later are after the incident.
  • History: Legacy
  • Locomotives
    • Should link to 2-2-2 the first time it is used.
    • It's not really important to this article where the rest of the unfulfilled order went, although it might be interesting to include why only four were accepted.
      • Not known although my guess would be the company thought that four 'poor' locomotives might be useful for something-or-other. I can't say though as that would be wp:or Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The names "Medusa, Hecate, Diomed and Lynx" should be in italics. Should "Diomed" be "Diomede" or "Diomedes" as the others are all Greek mythological names.
    • Any chance of a picture of one of these engines?
      • Hen's teeth. I will look though. There is a picture of an engine in the M&BR article but I'm no expert and cannot say if it would suffice. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only one I've found is here. I don't know if its the same design so won't include it for now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Another possible image here - this may be an ELR locomotive modified for the LYR, but frankly its guesswork. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accidents
    • According to the Railways Archive, the Maghull accident was on 1 January 1850 and 7 passengers were injured in the Clifton incident.
  • *Is it notable that trains were held up by snow in January 1867? Does this constitute an accident?
      • Its just setting up a context for the types of conditions commonly encountered on railways in Victorian England. I have another similar accident that might be useful, presently its in the Ringley Road railway station article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
    • References 2 and 4 cite Hadfield 1970 but there is no book in the bibliography by this author.
    • Reference 3 cites Paget-Tomlinson 2006 but there is no book by this author listed.
    • Reference 12 - see comment above.
    • Reference 28 is cited to "Greville Holt" rather than "Greville & Holt" - consequently the link to the bibliography does not work.
    • Reference 31 does not link to the bibliography entry for Awdry.
    • Reference 35 does not link to the bibliography entry for Bennett.
    • References 9, 15, 16 and 23 need to be expanded to indicate these refer to an acts of parliament.
      • The first instance does state that it is an Act of Parliament, I do not therefore believe that the others require it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reference 9 itself does not indicate that it is an act of parliament, only its context after that statement in the main text. Even so, every time a reference is listed it should be explained - for example the various Greville & Holt references all give their names. It might also be useful to indicate which year these acts were passed which should be 1844, 1844, 1846 and 1846 respectively. Are you sure that the reference for 9 is correct as the List of Acts indicates that this was the Trafalgar Square Act, 1844. --DavidCane (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This disagrees Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think there must be an error in your source. The National Archive refers to it as the Trafalgar Square Act here. If the chapter (c.) can contain more than one act, the full name should be given. --DavidCane (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, I can only offer section lx of this. Section ii would offer support to the above source regarding the Bolton and Preston Railway. To be honest though, I find it all a bit confusing, especially as no mention of the MB&RR is made. I'm wondering what the text on the actual act says - but I'm certainly not travelling down to London just to find out :) Maybe one day the stationary office will get around to digitising everything. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • References 17 and 30 - what are the sources for these.
  • Categories
  • General
    • There are some punctuation issues, particularly with the use of commas.
    • In addition to the map suggested above, a route diagram would really help understand the arrangement of all these lines.
      • Trying, so far the only map I have is the L&YR map in Victoria Station at Manchester. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was thinking something along the lines of {{CCE&HR route map}}, although it's likely it would be more complicated. --DavidCane (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are route maps on some of the station articles. Personally I think it would be enormously complicated, but I've added a nice graphical map anyway. I plan to colour code it according to expansion and build dates, and also to include a key. I may also add a background and some geographical details, but not just now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The map is useful and I prefer the current version to the ones with the shaded background. There are a couple of problems, though:
            • #There are 11 coloured sections of lines on the map but only ten dates in the key. The Farington to Preston section seems to be missing from the key.
            • #The colours for Newchurch to Bacup and Ormskirk to Rainsford are different in the key than on the map - they have the colour for the Farington to Preston section.
            • #On my screen the text in the key is overlapping the bars in the key and some of the place names overlap the route lines. Have you used a non-core font that others might not have on their systems? --DavidCane (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No idea tbh. Illustrator saves them as a system font. It displays correctly when viewed in max size on Firefox 3. SVG files are tricky and I don't think the Wikipedia renderer works properly. I could use a png file but that precludes the possibility of other people adding more information. The black lines are mostly other railways - some of the minor branches may be ELR or L&YR lines, I have yet to ascertain which. The Crawshawbooth branch won't be added until I find out when it was complete, and the Skipton extension (not ELR) isn't yet in. I can't do much more until next week now, busy at work. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I author my own maps as .svg in Inkscape but I'm always disappointed by the way they display so I put them on Wikipedia as .png so they appear as they want them. --DavidCane (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Lancashire_Railway_(1844–1859)/GA1&oldid=1141713421"