Talk:Cotswold Line
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| See also: WikiProject Trains to do list | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article is maintained by WikiProject UK Railways. |
 |
Cotswold Line was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: 2007-03-19 |
In common with many articles with the suffix Line this article seems to think that it is synonymous with railway. The term Line is one used by the railway marketing people to sell the services running over particular routes. The railway lines (NB small 'l'!) over which the present-day Cotswold Line trains run were: Oxford-Worcester, part of the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway (first Act of Parliament 1845); which took over the (Worcester and Hereford Railway, to become the West Midlands Railway in 1860). Latter amalgamated with the GWR in 1863. Peter Shearan 08:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Mea culpa! The first part of my comment above still holds good, but I hadn't read lower down the article which shows exactly what I have said above. Nevertheless, I have amended very slightly the opening statement: it isn't a railway! Peter Shearan 09:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wolvercot Junction or Wolvercote Junction
Wolvercot seems to be the traditional railway spelling and it is still in use as in the SRA Strategic Plan 2003 (pdf). --Cavrdg 2 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article NominationGood evening (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 18:13, Thursday March 29, 2007 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has failed one or more categories and is therefore denied GA status. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title; this should be taken as advice for improvement, rather than a list of reasons for failing.
My condolences to the lead editors - your hard work has been informally recognised; just keep it up, and do not be disheartened! Feel free to renominate the article when the above improvements have been made, or alternatively seek a GA Review or discuss my decision at my talk page if you believe I have been misguided. Sincerest regards, |
