Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Borders Railway

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 10:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Borders Railway

edit
(
)
  • Comment: Article created in my userspace on 30 March 2015, moved to mainspace on 8 June 2015. This is my first DYK nomination.

Moved to mainspace by KlausFoehl (talk), Lamberhurst (talk), and RGloucester (talk). Nominated by KlausFoehl (talk) at 17:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC).

  • I'd propose that, should this hook be accepted, it be retained in the queue until the opening day of the line, on the 6th of September. RGloucester — ☎ 03:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This article is new enough and long enough, and also qualifies for DYK as a newly promoted GA. The hook facts are appropriately sourced. The article is neutral and I found no close paraphrasing. Request to keep this for 6th September. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but, with the exception of April Fools' Day, date requests are only acceptable for a maximum of six weeks from nomination This was nominated almost thirteen weeks before the requested date. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the math in the hook correct? It was closed in 1969, which would make it "nearly 50 years". Yoninah (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: The fifty year period is calculated not from the date of closure but from the date when it was "designated as one of the most "unremunerative" railway lines", i.e. 1963. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • But it doesn't say that in the article. Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I saw that. But it only gives the 1963 date in the footnote, not in the article. The hook fact has to be mentioned and cited in the article. Only the 1969 date is given in the article. There's no way to determine that it happened "more than 50 years" ago. Yoninah (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I am currently on holidays, sparse internet, but I am almost certain that fellows from our guild of authors will already have found a wording solution once that blissful week of mine is over. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mandarax: We are now 5 weeks and 5 days from the proposed DYK date. The issue raised by Yoninah has been resolved with the insertion of the date of the Beeching Report in the text of the article. Can this DYK be moved forward now? Lamberhurst (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The issue is not yet resolved. The sources given say nothing about an "unremunerative line". Moreover, there is no citation connecting the Beeching Report with the 1963 version. Footnote 6 says nothing about the Beeching Report, and Footnote 5 just mentions it without giving the date. In the Beeching Report report article, it says there were two versions, one in 1963 and one in 1965. This lack of sourcing does not change the GA status of the article, but at DYK, the hook fact must be stated and cited inline, per 3. Cited hook. Please either provide sourcing for 1963–Beeching Report–unremunerative line, or provide a different hook. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
There weren't two versions of the Beeching Report. There were two separate Reports, with different remits. The best-known is the 1963 Report, formally "The Reshaping of British Railways", which was in two parts - "Part 1: Report" and "Part 2: Maps". On p. 102 of Part One we find that Edinburgh Waverley-Hawick-Carlisle is listed as one of the lines with passenger services to be withdrawn, the same line is shown in Map No. 9 in Part 2 coloured black, meaning "All passenger services to be withdrawn".
The less well-known Beeching Report is that of 1965, formally "The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes". This does mention the Borders Railway, but only in the context of being a duplicate route (see for example maps 1 & 2). There would have been little point in developing traffic over a line that had already been scheduled for closure. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref now added. Thanks for your thoroughness, Yoninah. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Offline hook cite AGF and cited inline. I took out the quotes around "unremunerative" in the hook because it's not written that way in the article, and also tweaked the grammar. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As for holding.... Just because it's now six weeks from the desired date does not change the fact that it was nominated thirteen weeks before the date. It's already been seven weeks since nomination, and as far as I'm concerned, it can not be held for another six weeks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mandarax: I just approved the hook. Considering that the opening date of the line is only 5 1/2 weeks away, and this is a first-time nomination, I think it would be proper to IAR and run it on September 6 as requested. Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Borders_Railway&oldid=679243080"