@
Epicgenius: There is, unfortunately, a rather large area of commonality between this article and
http://jcrhs.org/B&O.html. The JCRHS article was written 2001/2004 and last updated in 2011, the content was added to this Wikipedia article in 2015. The WP article will have to be extensively re-written. This Review is on hold until the #2D issue of "putting it into your own words" is resolved. If you'd like to see the areas of concern just run the copyvio detector tool in the GA toolbox. Thanks,
Shearonink (
talk)
18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I am going to do a few more proofing readthroughs to see if I missed any problems/issues. I must say this article is overall looking pretty darn good at this point but please take a look at "References" section below.
Shearonink (
talk)
17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)reply
This is now a
WP:GA. Future improvements might include keeping the article up-to-date with news about the North Shore Branch's possible redevelopment and perhaps taking another look at the citations (bundling etc.). Congrats,
Shearonink (
talk)
21:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)reply
References
@
Kew Gardens 613 and
Epicgenius: On my last readthrough I did notice something - there are a number of times where there are multiple references in one long string (for example, in Route description, in History/Opening and 1900s). These references are basically interrupting the flow of the text, I think that
WP:CITEBUNDLE is coming into play here.
There are two ways to deal with this:
Some of the refs could be deleted from sourcing the same facts or
The references could be bundled together (maybe the editor/nominator wants to retain the references for historical purposes, etc), then there would be one reference number for the multiple sources within the text with the sources all listed-out within the Footnotes. For an example of how to achieve this take a look at
this article.
Shearonink (
talk)
17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Visually much better - perhaps not the way I would have done it but that's ok. Going forward & thinking of possible future improvements I think that there is a bit of citation overload going on here, cite-bundling would be a good way to 1)Retain all the sources for historical purposes and 2)Increase readability in the main text - but how you've chosen to do it is your personal style and that's fine. Cheers,
Shearonink (
talk)
20:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Epicgenius: There is, unfortunately, a rather large area of commonality between this article and
http://jcrhs.org/B&O.html. The JCRHS article was written 2001/2004 and last updated in 2011, the content was added to this Wikipedia article in 2015. The WP article will have to be extensively re-written. This Review is on hold until the #2D issue of "putting it into your own words" is resolved. If you'd like to see the areas of concern just run the copyvio detector tool in the GA toolbox. Thanks,
Shearonink (
talk)
18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I am going to do a few more proofing readthroughs to see if I missed any problems/issues. I must say this article is overall looking pretty darn good at this point but please take a look at "References" section below.
Shearonink (
talk)
17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)reply
This is now a
WP:GA. Future improvements might include keeping the article up-to-date with news about the North Shore Branch's possible redevelopment and perhaps taking another look at the citations (bundling etc.). Congrats,
Shearonink (
talk)
21:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)reply
References
@
Kew Gardens 613 and
Epicgenius: On my last readthrough I did notice something - there are a number of times where there are multiple references in one long string (for example, in Route description, in History/Opening and 1900s). These references are basically interrupting the flow of the text, I think that
WP:CITEBUNDLE is coming into play here.
There are two ways to deal with this:
Some of the refs could be deleted from sourcing the same facts or
The references could be bundled together (maybe the editor/nominator wants to retain the references for historical purposes, etc), then there would be one reference number for the multiple sources within the text with the sources all listed-out within the Footnotes. For an example of how to achieve this take a look at
this article.
Shearonink (
talk)
17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Visually much better - perhaps not the way I would have done it but that's ok. Going forward & thinking of possible future improvements I think that there is a bit of citation overload going on here, cite-bundling would be a good way to 1)Retain all the sources for historical purposes and 2)Increase readability in the main text - but how you've chosen to do it is your personal style and that's fine. Cheers,
Shearonink (
talk)
20:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)reply