![]() | Marshlink line is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Marshlink line has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Marshlink Line RDT. |
Is it a stopper from Hasting to Ashford *AND* a fast from Brighton to Ashford, or something else ??? Pickle 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Marshlink Line. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Shearonink ( talk · contribs) 06:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I will review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink ( talk) 06:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 17:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Marshlink Line →
Marshlink line – Generally not capped Line in sources, so downcase per
WP:TITLEFORMAT and
MOS:CAPS.
Dicklyon (
talk)
15:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
Following an edit dispute with another IP user, I've decided that the best solution would be to ask the question here. The dispute concerns three recent revisions; more specifically the wording of the paragraphs and (to an extent) the location of images.
I edited the article twice on 22nd August, by changing the wording of the paragraphs in the "Route" and "Services" sections (in my opinion they weren't very clear), adding a new main photo, moving some of the other pictures around, and moving one picture to the right-hand side because I really don't like the text layout when the image is on the left. Later that day this was re-edited by the other user - it appears that (s)he kept the first few paragraphs in the "Route" section the same as in "my" edit, and reverted the rest of my edit back to the "original", including the images. (S)he later added what was the new main photo back, and put it in the "Future" section - not sure why, since that photo has nothing to do with the future of the line, therefore it doesn't belong there. No explanation was given for these edits so I undid them. However, this was undone back by the other user, again with no explanation.
The other IP then then left a short message on my old IP's talk page, stating that my edit apparently "wasn't well-written" and that "less is more" (whatever that is supposed to mean). I replied in detail (please read my response in the link), stating why I believe that my edit is an improvement compared to both the old version and his/her edit (which is also missing one paragraph). (S)he didn't reply back - I'm not sure if (s)he consciously decided not to, or if his/her IP address has since changed so (s)he didn't get the notification, but either way, no response, which is why I'm taking this matter further and asking the question here.
Which edit makes the most sense in terms of page layout, grammar and clarity?:
(I was originally going to create an RfC for this, to also get an opinion from someone who has no interest in railways - however after reading the help page, I'm not sure whether RfCs can be used for three-way questions so I don't want to risk it.)
In the meantime, I am going to revert the current edit back to "my" version. This is not because I want to "push" my edit, but in order to prevent any more back-and-forth reverts, and to redirect people to the talk page if they have any further questions. Of course if the final consensus goes against my edit, it can be edited back. 2A00:23C5:D033:4400:7943:5007:5D05:E7B0 ( talk) 13:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@
Ritchie333: thanks for getting back to me - honestly after all those weeks I thought no one would!
I understand why you have reverted the edit back to the original - in hindsight maybe I should have done the same. For the same reasons I described above, I shall leave it as is for now, until we come to a consensus here. However, for the "final" version, I still think we should work based on my edit, as I still believe that it is better-written than the original version (unless of course you believe otherwise). The majority of the changes I made have similar information anyway, just worded and structured more clearly. I removed a few minor details which I thought weren't relevant to the "Route" section (e.g. the former name of Ham Street station - if anywhere that can go to "History" instead), and added a few things that suited this section more (e.g. the number of tracks north of Appledore).
I realise that this is probably a matter of taste, but I personally disagree with your claim that the picture of trains at Rye is better-suited as the main photo for the article. The photo of the Turbostar near Winchelsea implies that the line passes mostly through rural countryside (which is true), shows that diesel Turbostars operate on the line, and the bright colours make it stand out more. Those are all the features that a main photo needs, really. Meanwhile, the photo of two Turbostars passing each other at Rye does show that the line is unelectrified, but in my opinion it doesn't show the line's true character. The picture was taken at the busiest point on the entire line by far, which is in the middle of a built-up area - contrary to the rest of this rural line. Furthermore, the line has two tracks at this point and it's not immediately obvious that the line reduces to single-track either side of the station (and even if it were, this detail is not important enough to have to be included in the main photo).
I will say, though, that the photo at Rye works perfectly with what is said in the "Routes" section - that's why I decided to move the picture down there. The text (in my edit) says that Rye station acts as a double-track passing loop for passenger services, and the photo does a good job telling the reader "this is what said passing loop looks like - two services pass each other here". Personally, I think this is how images should be laid out in general - the main photo doesn't have to be detailed, it just has to be relevant and look pretty; photos with details can then be used to complement text.
Regardless of what photo should be used at the top, I still really dislike the idea of having some images on the left side of the text. I just think it makes the text layout look really ugly.
Regarding the short single-track bit in Ashford, I don't agree with putting that detail in a footnote. The rest of the line has a full description of how many tracks each section has, so it doesn't make sense to call this one an over-detail, even if the single track is very short. As for references to support this sentence, I've found two. One of them ( [1]) is from a book published in 2017. The second one ( [2]) is a YouTube video - I'm aware that as per WP:YTREF, one should be careful when using YouTube as a source, however in this case the video does the job well enough, since all one needs to do is watch the video and count the tracks and that would prove the statement true. In fact both of these sources can also be used to support other bits that are unsourced in my edit, for example that the passing loop at Rye station exists, and that there is an electrified siding parallelling the line between Ore Tunnel and Ore station.
Also, you just said that the above is factually correct - what did you use to confirm this? Can it be used as a source for the article as well?
As for the "disused" station building and platform at Winchelsea - I'll admit I may have used the wrong word here! By "disused" I meant "no longer in use by the railway", not "no longer in use at all". Simply removing the word from that sentence would fix this issue though and the rest of the sentence would remain coherent. (But in any case, I do believe that the platform (but not the building) is actually disused, considering it's terribly overgrown and isn't fenced off from the track that's still in use. Sadly I can't find a source for that though...)
2A00:23C5:D033:4400:28C2:63FE:1919:E201 ( talk) 17:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I've done a bit more expansion on this article, using sources I can find, and dropped in the reference to the short single-track section immediately south of Ashford International; however there's not really much relevant to the route to write about. It kind of passes through the middle of nowhere (which is indeed a key reason why it was a hair's breadth away from being closed altogether during the 60s and 70s) so there's not really much to write about.
Images have to go on the left hand side because of the way the infobox formatting works - if you try and right-align an image before the end of an infobox, it will drop it below the end of the box, probably in completely the wrong place and disrupt images. So we have to make do with left-align images as the least worst option.
The photo of the two trains at Rye is a busy point on the line, but I think it's also the most memorable and recognisable portion for anyone who's travelled on it. Obviously opinions will vary, but once you've passed through one or two fields through Romney Marsh with not much to look at but sheep, things might sort of look the same for people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
References
I'm having difficulty finding good sources for the rolling stock. I'm sure they must exist, such as old books or copies of Railway Magazine, but I can't easily get to any of that. The principal source for some of this is " A brief history of the Marshlink line" which admits it may not be fully accurate and welcomes corrections. The specific claims I'd like another good source for are:
Redrose64 this is your area of expertise, can you help at all? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Marshlink line is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Marshlink line has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Marshlink Line RDT. |
Is it a stopper from Hasting to Ashford *AND* a fast from Brighton to Ashford, or something else ??? Pickle 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Marshlink Line. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Shearonink ( talk · contribs) 06:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I will review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink ( talk) 06:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 17:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Marshlink Line →
Marshlink line – Generally not capped Line in sources, so downcase per
WP:TITLEFORMAT and
MOS:CAPS.
Dicklyon (
talk)
15:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
Following an edit dispute with another IP user, I've decided that the best solution would be to ask the question here. The dispute concerns three recent revisions; more specifically the wording of the paragraphs and (to an extent) the location of images.
I edited the article twice on 22nd August, by changing the wording of the paragraphs in the "Route" and "Services" sections (in my opinion they weren't very clear), adding a new main photo, moving some of the other pictures around, and moving one picture to the right-hand side because I really don't like the text layout when the image is on the left. Later that day this was re-edited by the other user - it appears that (s)he kept the first few paragraphs in the "Route" section the same as in "my" edit, and reverted the rest of my edit back to the "original", including the images. (S)he later added what was the new main photo back, and put it in the "Future" section - not sure why, since that photo has nothing to do with the future of the line, therefore it doesn't belong there. No explanation was given for these edits so I undid them. However, this was undone back by the other user, again with no explanation.
The other IP then then left a short message on my old IP's talk page, stating that my edit apparently "wasn't well-written" and that "less is more" (whatever that is supposed to mean). I replied in detail (please read my response in the link), stating why I believe that my edit is an improvement compared to both the old version and his/her edit (which is also missing one paragraph). (S)he didn't reply back - I'm not sure if (s)he consciously decided not to, or if his/her IP address has since changed so (s)he didn't get the notification, but either way, no response, which is why I'm taking this matter further and asking the question here.
Which edit makes the most sense in terms of page layout, grammar and clarity?:
(I was originally going to create an RfC for this, to also get an opinion from someone who has no interest in railways - however after reading the help page, I'm not sure whether RfCs can be used for three-way questions so I don't want to risk it.)
In the meantime, I am going to revert the current edit back to "my" version. This is not because I want to "push" my edit, but in order to prevent any more back-and-forth reverts, and to redirect people to the talk page if they have any further questions. Of course if the final consensus goes against my edit, it can be edited back. 2A00:23C5:D033:4400:7943:5007:5D05:E7B0 ( talk) 13:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@
Ritchie333: thanks for getting back to me - honestly after all those weeks I thought no one would!
I understand why you have reverted the edit back to the original - in hindsight maybe I should have done the same. For the same reasons I described above, I shall leave it as is for now, until we come to a consensus here. However, for the "final" version, I still think we should work based on my edit, as I still believe that it is better-written than the original version (unless of course you believe otherwise). The majority of the changes I made have similar information anyway, just worded and structured more clearly. I removed a few minor details which I thought weren't relevant to the "Route" section (e.g. the former name of Ham Street station - if anywhere that can go to "History" instead), and added a few things that suited this section more (e.g. the number of tracks north of Appledore).
I realise that this is probably a matter of taste, but I personally disagree with your claim that the picture of trains at Rye is better-suited as the main photo for the article. The photo of the Turbostar near Winchelsea implies that the line passes mostly through rural countryside (which is true), shows that diesel Turbostars operate on the line, and the bright colours make it stand out more. Those are all the features that a main photo needs, really. Meanwhile, the photo of two Turbostars passing each other at Rye does show that the line is unelectrified, but in my opinion it doesn't show the line's true character. The picture was taken at the busiest point on the entire line by far, which is in the middle of a built-up area - contrary to the rest of this rural line. Furthermore, the line has two tracks at this point and it's not immediately obvious that the line reduces to single-track either side of the station (and even if it were, this detail is not important enough to have to be included in the main photo).
I will say, though, that the photo at Rye works perfectly with what is said in the "Routes" section - that's why I decided to move the picture down there. The text (in my edit) says that Rye station acts as a double-track passing loop for passenger services, and the photo does a good job telling the reader "this is what said passing loop looks like - two services pass each other here". Personally, I think this is how images should be laid out in general - the main photo doesn't have to be detailed, it just has to be relevant and look pretty; photos with details can then be used to complement text.
Regardless of what photo should be used at the top, I still really dislike the idea of having some images on the left side of the text. I just think it makes the text layout look really ugly.
Regarding the short single-track bit in Ashford, I don't agree with putting that detail in a footnote. The rest of the line has a full description of how many tracks each section has, so it doesn't make sense to call this one an over-detail, even if the single track is very short. As for references to support this sentence, I've found two. One of them ( [1]) is from a book published in 2017. The second one ( [2]) is a YouTube video - I'm aware that as per WP:YTREF, one should be careful when using YouTube as a source, however in this case the video does the job well enough, since all one needs to do is watch the video and count the tracks and that would prove the statement true. In fact both of these sources can also be used to support other bits that are unsourced in my edit, for example that the passing loop at Rye station exists, and that there is an electrified siding parallelling the line between Ore Tunnel and Ore station.
Also, you just said that the above is factually correct - what did you use to confirm this? Can it be used as a source for the article as well?
As for the "disused" station building and platform at Winchelsea - I'll admit I may have used the wrong word here! By "disused" I meant "no longer in use by the railway", not "no longer in use at all". Simply removing the word from that sentence would fix this issue though and the rest of the sentence would remain coherent. (But in any case, I do believe that the platform (but not the building) is actually disused, considering it's terribly overgrown and isn't fenced off from the track that's still in use. Sadly I can't find a source for that though...)
2A00:23C5:D033:4400:28C2:63FE:1919:E201 ( talk) 17:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I've done a bit more expansion on this article, using sources I can find, and dropped in the reference to the short single-track section immediately south of Ashford International; however there's not really much relevant to the route to write about. It kind of passes through the middle of nowhere (which is indeed a key reason why it was a hair's breadth away from being closed altogether during the 60s and 70s) so there's not really much to write about.
Images have to go on the left hand side because of the way the infobox formatting works - if you try and right-align an image before the end of an infobox, it will drop it below the end of the box, probably in completely the wrong place and disrupt images. So we have to make do with left-align images as the least worst option.
The photo of the two trains at Rye is a busy point on the line, but I think it's also the most memorable and recognisable portion for anyone who's travelled on it. Obviously opinions will vary, but once you've passed through one or two fields through Romney Marsh with not much to look at but sheep, things might sort of look the same for people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
References
I'm having difficulty finding good sources for the rolling stock. I'm sure they must exist, such as old books or copies of Railway Magazine, but I can't easily get to any of that. The principal source for some of this is " A brief history of the Marshlink line" which admits it may not be fully accurate and welcomes corrections. The specific claims I'd like another good source for are:
Redrose64 this is your area of expertise, can you help at all? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)