He met numerous difficulties to which the CTR was no stranger, but on 17 July 1899, a new company to be called Traction Électrique E. Cauderay (a sister company of the better-known Companie Générale de Traction — CGT —) was decreed the concession over five routes: "...was decreed the concession..." is not good English, suggest something like "was granted the concession".
In 1908 the CGT divested the second network to the Compagnie centrale de chemins de fer et de tramways because of administrative problems, a serious accident at Monumental on 6 November 1908[22] and a considerable deficit. Surely "divested itself of"?
It also grew the network with later-running services, suggest developed, rather than grew.
the CTR dutifully maintained normal service dutifully suggests a point of view.
Denied maintenance until after World War I, ways and means were in a piteous state, while expenses escalated dramatically. Sugest simply "the lines" were ina bad state.
A tough competitor had also arrived: the bus. POV
Still, the CTR had record passenger numbers in 1928, with over 30 million journeys. Still? POV
The tramways continued with no intent to surrender, and started large programmes of renovation and modernisation in the dozen or so years before World War II. "no intent to surrender" POV
The fast-moving Rouen workshops "fast moving" POV
the war had condemned the first mode of mass transport in Normandy. Condemned to what?
''the clientele of the funicular sunk inexorably inexorably seems to be POV
If this latter was accepted without resistance by the departmental authorities, the service reduction was allowed with much red tape, surely would be rather than was?
Who did the translation of oulier's report? Should the translation be credited?
The decision to close the small line fell like an axe on 1 November 1908.[51] Thus ended the short history of the Trianon tramway, a victim of economics but above all two serious strategic errors:[50] wanting a service independent of the CTR's network, and putting its terminus out of town. POV statements
'Epilogue': would Legacy be better. This whole section has a lot of POV statements.
I suggest a thorough copy-edit by an univoled editor with special attention to POV statements and improving grammar and flow.
I made a few copy edits to remedy obvious mistakes.
[2]
I feel that an infobox at top left would be useful to present a summary of the line, perhaps using
Template:Infobox rail (NB: not a Ga requirement, but would improve the layout)
On hold for above concerns to be addressed. The copy-edit is most important. This may take time, so I won't fail as long as progress is being made. ––
Jezhotwells (
talk)
15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I think my points have been sufficiently addressed to justify good artcile status. Congratulations and thanks for your hard work. ––
Jezhotwells (
talk)
17:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I have made copy edits and tried to remove the creeping POV statements (these were translated as literally as possible from the French, but I accept they are not to English WP standards). I have asked
User:Mjroots to review for copy edit since I think he is the most knowledgeable and impartial person to do this, he also is the one who suggested I take it to GAN. I hope this is not considered WP:CANVASS, I am new to this but he would seem the best to give an impartial copy edit if he is willing.
Si Trew (
talk)
16:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
He met numerous difficulties to which the CTR was no stranger, but on 17 July 1899, a new company to be called Traction Électrique E. Cauderay (a sister company of the better-known Companie Générale de Traction — CGT —) was decreed the concession over five routes: "...was decreed the concession..." is not good English, suggest something like "was granted the concession".
In 1908 the CGT divested the second network to the Compagnie centrale de chemins de fer et de tramways because of administrative problems, a serious accident at Monumental on 6 November 1908[22] and a considerable deficit. Surely "divested itself of"?
It also grew the network with later-running services, suggest developed, rather than grew.
the CTR dutifully maintained normal service dutifully suggests a point of view.
Denied maintenance until after World War I, ways and means were in a piteous state, while expenses escalated dramatically. Sugest simply "the lines" were ina bad state.
A tough competitor had also arrived: the bus. POV
Still, the CTR had record passenger numbers in 1928, with over 30 million journeys. Still? POV
The tramways continued with no intent to surrender, and started large programmes of renovation and modernisation in the dozen or so years before World War II. "no intent to surrender" POV
The fast-moving Rouen workshops "fast moving" POV
the war had condemned the first mode of mass transport in Normandy. Condemned to what?
''the clientele of the funicular sunk inexorably inexorably seems to be POV
If this latter was accepted without resistance by the departmental authorities, the service reduction was allowed with much red tape, surely would be rather than was?
Who did the translation of oulier's report? Should the translation be credited?
The decision to close the small line fell like an axe on 1 November 1908.[51] Thus ended the short history of the Trianon tramway, a victim of economics but above all two serious strategic errors:[50] wanting a service independent of the CTR's network, and putting its terminus out of town. POV statements
'Epilogue': would Legacy be better. This whole section has a lot of POV statements.
I suggest a thorough copy-edit by an univoled editor with special attention to POV statements and improving grammar and flow.
I made a few copy edits to remedy obvious mistakes.
[2]
I feel that an infobox at top left would be useful to present a summary of the line, perhaps using
Template:Infobox rail (NB: not a Ga requirement, but would improve the layout)
On hold for above concerns to be addressed. The copy-edit is most important. This may take time, so I won't fail as long as progress is being made. ––
Jezhotwells (
talk)
15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I think my points have been sufficiently addressed to justify good artcile status. Congratulations and thanks for your hard work. ––
Jezhotwells (
talk)
17:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I have made copy edits and tried to remove the creeping POV statements (these were translated as literally as possible from the French, but I accept they are not to English WP standards). I have asked
User:Mjroots to review for copy edit since I think he is the most knowledgeable and impartial person to do this, he also is the one who suggested I take it to GAN. I hope this is not considered WP:CANVASS, I am new to this but he would seem the best to give an impartial copy edit if he is willing.
Si Trew (
talk)
16:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply