![]() | Railway stations in Cromer was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've begun the Good Article review for this article. On a first read, it appears to be very close. One suggestion, though: I find the lead section confusing. The article title refers to the one railway station that still exists, but that station is not mentioned until near the end of the lead paragraph. I'd like to see this restructured so that the present station is described first, and then the history behind it. I think two separate paragraphs would probably be the best presentation. - Pete ( talk) 06:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be going round in circles, doesn't it? I've no objection to Simply south's suggestion to rename it in the plural. Seems the easiest way out to me. Mjroots ( talk) 14:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) So, as I see it, there are three possibilities:
So, I'd say we need to make a decision between #1 and #2, and adjust the article accordingly. Having this decision "in limbo" would, I think, prevent approval of GA status, as it's hard to call the article "stable" with this question hanging over it.
Finally, in response to Iridescent: your statement above is good. I think it would help the article to include something along those lines in the lead. You're right, the article does say all that, but it would have been much clearer to me if it had been expressed in the lead; that would have made the rest of the article make more sense, which I think is the primary function of a lead section. - Pete ( talk) 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Anybody working on the bolding in the lead paragraph, please take a close look at Wikipedia:LEAD#Bold title. My understanding is that an article like this should have no bolding in its lead section; the article title is not the "natural name" of anything. - Pete ( talk) 20:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a bit of a stub, do you think this should be merged in here or left separately? Simply south ( talk) 16:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I hate to keep proposing structural changes, but it occurs to me we haven't considered this, and it may be the most reasonable structure:
Among other things, this makes it possible to avoid having an invobox in an article section. I'm not sure whether that violates a guideline or not, but I find it unsightly and confusing.
Thoughts? - Pete ( talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Pete asked me to take a look at this article and to give a 2nd opinion on it. As Iridiscent said, I was in favour of the merger of what would otherwise have been three stubs into this one article, so the overall structure looks fine to me. The deciusion I think is vindicated by the fact the this is still a pretty short article. Still, that's not an impediment to a GA listing so long as it's reasonably complete, which I'm inclined to believe that it probably is. After reviewing the article with the GA criteria in mind I do have a few specific points:
And that's about it I think so far as I can see. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've redone the railway diagram for the Bittern Line. With regard to Sheringham, the Sheringham station link leads to the halt at Sheringham. The main station appears not to have its own article. So, is it to be Sheringham railway stations or Sheringham (M&GN) station? Mjroots ( talk) 20:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) (the guideline):
Insert in the main body of articles - either after the intro or in the most appropriate section. Consider putting in the top right only in the most compelling of cases.
As such, the placement of the infobox in this article is fine! Regards, Severo T C 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations to all editors, I'm approving this article for Good Article status. I apologize for how long the process took – it was my first review, and I could have approached it better – and commend all editors involved for their patience and diligence in dealing with various issues. I particularly thank Malleus Fatuorum, for offering a second opinion on the article that clearly reflects experience with the process, and a close reading. Finally, it would be great if any of you could undertake a GA review of another article, as there is somewhat of a backlog there. Please see WP:GAN, and feel free to call upon me for assistance…I'll provide it to the best of my ability! Congrats all, well done! - Pete ( talk) 05:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Should this page have GA status?. Looks quite small to me. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 20:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the current Cromer Station have a separate page? Or if it does why does the DfT Category F1 stations page link to here, even if it is for the current station section? Wetter88 ( talk) 09:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Railway stations in Cromer. 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 to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Railway stations in Cromer. 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 to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Railway stations in Cromer. 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}}
).
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Generally as per WP:UKSTATION all current railway stations should have their own article entitled "x railway station". Only Cromer and Newmarket (Suffolk) do not follow this policy and it's time to bring them into line with agreed-upon conventions. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 16:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This article falls far short of modern standards for GAs. Two sections are wholly uncited, and the article cites, and this is not a typo, two sources in total. A few more are listed as general references with no inline citations. The article is so short I fail to see how it could be considered a comprehensive treatment of the subject. The graphic used for the first photo looks like something I could have made in MSPaint in 2 minutes. Separately, I don't see the need for this article to even exist, but that's outside the scope of GAR. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Railway stations in Cromer was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've begun the Good Article review for this article. On a first read, it appears to be very close. One suggestion, though: I find the lead section confusing. The article title refers to the one railway station that still exists, but that station is not mentioned until near the end of the lead paragraph. I'd like to see this restructured so that the present station is described first, and then the history behind it. I think two separate paragraphs would probably be the best presentation. - Pete ( talk) 06:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be going round in circles, doesn't it? I've no objection to Simply south's suggestion to rename it in the plural. Seems the easiest way out to me. Mjroots ( talk) 14:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) So, as I see it, there are three possibilities:
So, I'd say we need to make a decision between #1 and #2, and adjust the article accordingly. Having this decision "in limbo" would, I think, prevent approval of GA status, as it's hard to call the article "stable" with this question hanging over it.
Finally, in response to Iridescent: your statement above is good. I think it would help the article to include something along those lines in the lead. You're right, the article does say all that, but it would have been much clearer to me if it had been expressed in the lead; that would have made the rest of the article make more sense, which I think is the primary function of a lead section. - Pete ( talk) 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Anybody working on the bolding in the lead paragraph, please take a close look at Wikipedia:LEAD#Bold title. My understanding is that an article like this should have no bolding in its lead section; the article title is not the "natural name" of anything. - Pete ( talk) 20:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a bit of a stub, do you think this should be merged in here or left separately? Simply south ( talk) 16:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I hate to keep proposing structural changes, but it occurs to me we haven't considered this, and it may be the most reasonable structure:
Among other things, this makes it possible to avoid having an invobox in an article section. I'm not sure whether that violates a guideline or not, but I find it unsightly and confusing.
Thoughts? - Pete ( talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Pete asked me to take a look at this article and to give a 2nd opinion on it. As Iridiscent said, I was in favour of the merger of what would otherwise have been three stubs into this one article, so the overall structure looks fine to me. The deciusion I think is vindicated by the fact the this is still a pretty short article. Still, that's not an impediment to a GA listing so long as it's reasonably complete, which I'm inclined to believe that it probably is. After reviewing the article with the GA criteria in mind I do have a few specific points:
And that's about it I think so far as I can see. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've redone the railway diagram for the Bittern Line. With regard to Sheringham, the Sheringham station link leads to the halt at Sheringham. The main station appears not to have its own article. So, is it to be Sheringham railway stations or Sheringham (M&GN) station? Mjroots ( talk) 20:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) (the guideline):
Insert in the main body of articles - either after the intro or in the most appropriate section. Consider putting in the top right only in the most compelling of cases.
As such, the placement of the infobox in this article is fine! Regards, Severo T C 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations to all editors, I'm approving this article for Good Article status. I apologize for how long the process took – it was my first review, and I could have approached it better – and commend all editors involved for their patience and diligence in dealing with various issues. I particularly thank Malleus Fatuorum, for offering a second opinion on the article that clearly reflects experience with the process, and a close reading. Finally, it would be great if any of you could undertake a GA review of another article, as there is somewhat of a backlog there. Please see WP:GAN, and feel free to call upon me for assistance…I'll provide it to the best of my ability! Congrats all, well done! - Pete ( talk) 05:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Should this page have GA status?. Looks quite small to me. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 20:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the current Cromer Station have a separate page? Or if it does why does the DfT Category F1 stations page link to here, even if it is for the current station section? Wetter88 ( talk) 09:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Railway stations in Cromer. 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 to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Railway stations in Cromer. 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 to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Railway stations in Cromer. 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}}
).
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Generally as per WP:UKSTATION all current railway stations should have their own article entitled "x railway station". Only Cromer and Newmarket (Suffolk) do not follow this policy and it's time to bring them into line with agreed-upon conventions. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 16:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This article falls far short of modern standards for GAs. Two sections are wholly uncited, and the article cites, and this is not a typo, two sources in total. A few more are listed as general references with no inline citations. The article is so short I fail to see how it could be considered a comprehensive treatment of the subject. The graphic used for the first photo looks like something I could have made in MSPaint in 2 minutes. Separately, I don't see the need for this article to even exist, but that's outside the scope of GAR. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)