Wikipedia:Peer review/Hellingly Hospital Railway/archive1

Hellingly Hospital 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 December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because despite being short, I think this article meets the primary criterion all Wikipedia articles should aim for, of saying everything about the topic that a general reader would want to know, whilst not going into unnecessary detail that would only be of interest to a true specialist (it does contain appropriate links for anyone who does want to know more!). I'm aware that it has some stylistic issues – IMO the short sections are due to the fact that there's not much to be said on some of the sections, but the separate sections exist because there's no obvious way to merge them (in particular, I'm aware that the lead is quite short – however, I don't see an obvious reason to expand it). The article's been through the GA process already, as well as a stint as featured article at Portal:Trains (not the same thing as FA), and been extensively cleaned up and slimmed down along the way; I'd be interested to see what suggestions uninvolved editors would have for it.

Thanks, – iridescent 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Realist²

BTW, I add points in stages. So I might add more in time.

Reference formatting issue in relation to publishing dates and retrieved dates. Some read "Retrieved on 29 May 2008" and others read "Retrieved on 2008-06-06". Pick one format and run with it. ;) — Realist² 21:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an artifact of {{cite journal}} and I'm not aware of any way to disable its "automatic translation" of dates (someone else may be able to). I thought date delinking was supposed to put a stop to this kind of thing, but obviously not. – iridescent 21:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did something similar myself today, I'll have a fiddle with the article if you like, see if it can be done, if not, no worry. — Realist² 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ideally, I'd like a way to fix this one ref that's causing the problem, instead of changing every other ref to match. Leave it as it is for the moment – it's not doing any active harm, and someone might know a quick-fix solution. – iridescent 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looks good. — Realist² 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lamberhurst

I thought I would comment as I personally know this line and have walked some of its course. As you mention above, the article has (imho) too many subsections with little content; in particular, the "history", "steam operation" and "electrification" seem to cover the same area, although don't follow a chronological order. It needs tightening up and a better organisation of the different areas: (1) Inception and construction, (2) Opening and operations (goods and passengers), (3) Decline and closure, (4) Motive power and (5) Route. Better images (and recent images) would also be useful: Geograph may be able to help out with a photograph of the hospital, and there is a PD image of Hellingly station with its wooden platform. Instead of the small route map, would a standard route diagram template not be clearer? In terms of beefing up the content, have you looked at A.C. Elliott's book on the Cuckoo Line, I believe it might have something. Finally, you may wish to wikify your references to the Cuckoo Trail and Hailsham. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the route map, I did consider a standard route diagram, but for a route like this it would basically just be a letter T and effectively useless; the "MS Paint doodle" map may be totally non-standard, but shows the way the track curved and looped so sharply on its approach to the hospital, and also makes it easier for anyone trying to trace the route on a current map or aerial photo. The drawings of the platform layout I think is useful as it illustrates a rather complicated explanation of how trains needed to reverse in and out of the mainline station due to the eccentric way the track branches north, south of the station.

If you can find undisputed PD photos of the railway in operation, or of the wooden platform, please do point me towards them or add them! I found lots of "probably PD" photos, but they all seem to be undated, and given how early the line opened and that it used the same engine throughout, it's hard to be date photos just by looking at them. (The one I used appeared in a 1906 magazine, so can be dated.) Likewise, if you can find any photos of the hospital – particularly showing the doors to the rail station – please let me know! I couldn't find any, haven't had the chance to go myself, but because the building is still standing couldn't really justify fair-use.

Many thanks for commenting. I agree about merging into a single "operations" section, unless someone else is able to expand the history – although I think I've pretty much covered all that needs to be covered in that particular area. I've wikilinked Cuckoo Trail and the first appearance of Hailsham in the lead and body text respectively; I think any more would be overlinking given how short the article is. – iridescent 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image I was thinking of is featured in the Vobes documentary. I'll see if I can find a date for it. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postally used in 1915. Now uploaded to the Commons. [1] Lamberhurst (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I'm not ignoring you – I haven't had time to do anything with this – but I think all your suggestions are good ones and will rework the article as you suggest when I get the chance. – iridescent 16:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All ✓ Done. I've used a slightly different section order to that you've suggested, as I think it makes for a clearer opening → operating → closing narrative structure. I'm still having trouble finding definitely PD images of the line itself in operation (there are lots of images about, but very few are dated, and because the rolling stock didn't change it's vary hard to date them from context). However, since the same locomotive was used throughout, a single photo should suffice. – iridescent 18:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a substantial improvement, and much easier on the eye. In terms of images, it seems from the material I have on the line that most photos were taken in the 1950s and are not PD. One you might however be able to use is the image of the electric passenger car on p. 7 of Harding which is said to be "soon after opening". Lamberhurst (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that on the balance of probabilities it's almost certainly PD, it's hard to say for sure. Copyright runs from the date of publication and not the date of the photograph, and there's a fairly good chance Harding was the first publication of the photo. Going by the "pre 1923 means out of copyright" rule it's quite easy to find pre-1923 photos (because the platform was remodelled in 1922, anything showing the station can be dated to before then) but publication dates are more problematic. It would almost certainly be possible to make a fair-use rationale for pictures of the railway in operation, but I'm trying to avoid fair-use; while restructuring it, it occurred to me that in a couple of months we have the 50th anniversary of the line's closure, and if it can be got through FA by then would make a good TFA (we haven't had a railway article for over six months, so combined with the anniversary it would get a very respectable 7 points at TFAR; although it's short I think it has a reasonable chance of passing FAC as it comprehensively covers the topic without going into excessive detail). – iridescent 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was that it had been published in the article in the 1905 Railway Magazine, although I can't be 100% sure of this. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mjroots

No mention is made in the article of the voltage that the line was electrified at. I've mentioned this on the article talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ansbaradigeidfran

Having encountered the article through a peer review link from WP:UKT, I knew nothing about the location of this railway when I read the article. I'd have found a location map to be very helpful, perhaps something like this (if I may be so bold as to give some of my own work as an example). Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might do if I can think of a workable way to do it. The problem is that because it's such a short line any map would need to be at a small scale; however, because it ran from the edge of Hellingly through open countryside, any map would basically be a wiggly line against a featureless green background (basically the existing route map – see right – with a grey blob immediately to the west of the mainline station for the village). See this Google Earth image showing the former Hellingly station; the curving line of trees branching north from the mainline trackbed immediately south of the station and heading northeast alongside "Park Road" and "The Drive" more or less follows the course of the trackbed from the village to the hospital. Zoom out, and you'll see there really isn't much surrounding geography to give any kind of broader context, and at a scale showing Eastbourne and Hailsham – the only significant nearby towns – the line would be lost completely. – iridescent 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]