Wikipedia:Peer review/Indian Railways/archive1
This is the current Indian Collaboration of the Week. I'll be adding the references and a network map in a short while. Any other comments appreciated :). =Nichalp (Talk)= 14:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- [Update]: I've split the article in two: A big chunk goes to Rail transport in India. =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your work in getting the article this far. I've been going through with quick copyedits and link fixes, but I think the grammar throughout the article could still be improved further. There's also some terminology that may be prevalent in India (i.e. "rake") but doesn't match what I'm used to (would this example be a consist or a trainset? Rake doesn't list a rail transport meaning, and rake isn't listed on Rail terminology). If I wasn't attending a model railroad show halfway across the state this weekend, I would jump in and work on it more thoroughly, but... slambo 17:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- It needs a copyedit I agree. There's still some cross verification of facts to be done. A "rake" is: A formation of coupled coaches or cars that makes up a train (minus the loco) is called a rake; the same as a 'consist' or 'cut' of cars in US terminology. (The word formation is also sometimes used in IR parlance for a freshly assembled rake.) [1]. Thanks for the copyedits. =Nichalp (Talk)= 17:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- That was my guess from the context. Thanks for the quick reply. slambo 17:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- The article looks pretty good; there isn't anything that stuck out as being missing. I think that the length (currently 37K) is okay, but I don't think it should get too much bigger. I notice that there aren't any references yet; I'm assuming that you're working on getting some before putting this up as a FAC. Beyond that, a few small things that I noticed:
- I think the word "rake" definitely needs to be defined, for the benefit of North American readers.
- I'm not entirely comfortable with the sentence "transporting over 5 billion people" in the lead. I changed "people" to "passengers", but I think it should be re-worded to something about passenger trips.
- The amount of trackage is given as 63,140 km in the lead and 108,706 km in the "Track" section, and 63,028 km in the "Traction" section. Also, the number of locomotives and rolling stock in the lead doesn't match the amounts listed in the "Notable trains and awards" section. Which is correct?
- In the "Rakes" section, it says "Tracks in many parts of India are still not electrified" (my emphasis). Is the Indian Railways undertaking a programme to electrify all of its lines? JYolkowski // talk 22:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. The references are on the Talk page; an unexpected power failure saw half my references being wiped clean. I'm working on adding a map at the moment. 1) I'll define rake 2) I'll check the figures, they don't match probably because they are from different sources. 3) Yes, a programme to electrify all lines is underway (though progress is slow). I'm currently working on drawing a few maps. =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that this was one of the first (although also one of the least successful) WP:COTWs while it was still Rail transport in India so would be good to get up to FAC standard. There is not much I can add, but I'll gladly copytedit. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)