![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a great deal more technical information about the Brighton Park crossing, interlocking, monitoring, and control which could be added however this is a fairly good start. Fredric Rice ( talk) 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This article sort of reads like it was written by a signal vendor's PR department. I cleaned up what I could, but the author keeps trying to revert it. Even right now it seems to be violating WP:DISCRIMINATE, but I don't want to get too nitpicky about that. Sturmovik ( talk)
An editor has removed considerable accurate, legitimate, and informative details about the crossing under the conviction that the information is not part of the crossing, later modified to suggest that the information is too detailed. Should arbitration be the next step toward ensuring that the content remains restored, requesting the inappropriate removal not be attempted a third time? I am one of the primary engineers which developed and fielded the Brighton Park / Pershing Main interlocks, and I can confirm that the contents being removed are 100% accurate.
Damotclese (
talk)
18:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The article as it stands is filled with intricate detail that is not going to be understandable by a non-expert reader. It is also poorly written and poorly laid out. My initial edit dealt with all three issues and did not delete any information at the level Wikipedia is aiming for. The section on the modernization currently violates the Wikipedia:NOTJOURNAL for its excessive use of jargon and detail and Wikipedia:NOTCATALOG for its shameless promotion of the vendors and products involved with the modernization effort. Desertphile has admitted to being a lead engineer on the project which clearly begs one to question the motivation behind the level of detail and the naming of specific companies and products. Furthermore the Modernization section is rife with bad grammar, is poorly laid out, has poor flow, uses non-standard English and often duplicates information both within the same article and information that is covered in other articles. I attempted to use the talk page to resolve the problem, but was only met with the insistence that there was nothing wrong with the article and that since i didn't work on the project I was somehow not qualified to summarize the article. Sturmovik ( talk) 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm a "randomly selected" editor from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. A couple of thoughts:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brighton Park crossing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.safetran.com/product/new/geo.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.safetran.com/product/Communications/Section%20A/Comm%20A-3-5.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.safetran.com/product/Signal/pdf%20Bsection/SIG%20B-13-9.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.safetran.com/product/Communications/Section%20A/Comm%20A-3-22.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a great deal more technical information about the Brighton Park crossing, interlocking, monitoring, and control which could be added however this is a fairly good start. Fredric Rice ( talk) 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This article sort of reads like it was written by a signal vendor's PR department. I cleaned up what I could, but the author keeps trying to revert it. Even right now it seems to be violating WP:DISCRIMINATE, but I don't want to get too nitpicky about that. Sturmovik ( talk)
An editor has removed considerable accurate, legitimate, and informative details about the crossing under the conviction that the information is not part of the crossing, later modified to suggest that the information is too detailed. Should arbitration be the next step toward ensuring that the content remains restored, requesting the inappropriate removal not be attempted a third time? I am one of the primary engineers which developed and fielded the Brighton Park / Pershing Main interlocks, and I can confirm that the contents being removed are 100% accurate.
Damotclese (
talk)
18:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The article as it stands is filled with intricate detail that is not going to be understandable by a non-expert reader. It is also poorly written and poorly laid out. My initial edit dealt with all three issues and did not delete any information at the level Wikipedia is aiming for. The section on the modernization currently violates the Wikipedia:NOTJOURNAL for its excessive use of jargon and detail and Wikipedia:NOTCATALOG for its shameless promotion of the vendors and products involved with the modernization effort. Desertphile has admitted to being a lead engineer on the project which clearly begs one to question the motivation behind the level of detail and the naming of specific companies and products. Furthermore the Modernization section is rife with bad grammar, is poorly laid out, has poor flow, uses non-standard English and often duplicates information both within the same article and information that is covered in other articles. I attempted to use the talk page to resolve the problem, but was only met with the insistence that there was nothing wrong with the article and that since i didn't work on the project I was somehow not qualified to summarize the article. Sturmovik ( talk) 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm a "randomly selected" editor from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. A couple of thoughts:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brighton Park crossing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.safetran.com/product/new/geo.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.safetran.com/product/Communications/Section%20A/Comm%20A-3-5.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.safetran.com/product/Signal/pdf%20Bsection/SIG%20B-13-9.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.safetran.com/product/Communications/Section%20A/Comm%20A-3-22.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)