# Talk:Robert Jacomb-Hood

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good quality and interesting article.
JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)


### Robert Jacomb-Hood
I've listed this article for peer review because I am determined to get it to FA but unfortunately we couldn't quite get there at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Jacomb-Hood/archive1. My plan is to fix anything during the peer review then hopefully we can have a nice and easy FAC at a later date.
Thanks, JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 11:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)


#### actuall7
Hey JacobTheRox, will place my review here. I read the FA nom, which seemed to focus on issues with the sources, but I will mainly focus on prose if that's alright. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 02:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

There are quite a few instances of missing commas, specifically MOS:GEOCOMMAs.
"Law" is capitalised in the lead but not in the body, please standardise this.
Born to a working-class family in Bedfordshire -> Would not state this in the lead as it is not explicitly stated in the body.
 his career personal finances grew -> Should it be career's?
the latter of which was for a paper that was considered pioneering in station design and railway engineering. -> Not sure if "pioneering" in the lead is the same as "innovative" in the body.
This included significant contributions to the Crystal Palace Company -> In the body, it is quite vague what "significant contributions" he did with the Crystal Palace Company. Would either expand on that in the body or reword the lead.
Would add Alan A. Jackson's occupation before his name (e.g. historian, biographer). Doesn't need a source per WP:SKYISBLUE.
Furthermore, Alan A. Jackson's name is not consistently presented (e.g. Alan A Jackson, Alan Jackson).
to be of "of Bardon Park, Leics" -> Repeated word.
Some sentences could be trimmed; for example, he was tasked to work under draftsman Charles Heard Wild -> he worked under draftsman Charles Heard Wild.
Would introduce the LB&SCR abbreviation at the start of the "1846–1850: Early LB&SCR work" section.
Why is the Institution of Civil Engineers abbreviated as "MICE" instead of "ICE", seeing as how "Institution of Civil Engineers" appears later in the text?
 worked on The Arun Valley line -> Why capitalise the "the"?
Would remove some links per WP:OL (e.g. Malta, Argentina)
An 1891 map of the Alabama and Great Southern Railway Company; Jacomb-Hood was instrumental in its creation. -> Caption should be changed as it shows the Alabama and Great Southern Railway, not the company.
On this note, the lead is misleading in that it states: as well as the Alabama Great Southern Railroad which he helped to create, seeing as how he helped create the company and not the railroad itself.
 the never-completed Ouse Valley Railway -> Not sure if mentioning it was never-completed here is necessary, seeing as how the next sentence explains that it didn't come to fruition.
A few sentences feel like WP:TRIVIA (William Jacomb [...] place at Wimbledon Cemetery, His grave is [...] I have kept the faith"., These were incredibly [...] times in his career.). Would recommend you remove them, but it is ultimately up to you.
who was a local printer -> What is "local" in this context? Would suggest: who was a printer from\based in [place]. Or if unknown, simply was a printer.
 Jacomb-Hood became engaged again to Elizabeth Thornton -> This implies that he remarried Thornton.
his wife was listed as a spinster -> Would clarify this is his second wife.
Additionally, why not refer to Jane Stothard Littlewood and Elizabeth Thornton by their surnames instead of first names?
Would suggest adding a portal bar at the bottom.
These are the main issues I found, nice article. Feel free to push back on anything I suggest that oversteps, as I am not that experienced at reviewing "FA-level" prose. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 04:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Comments from Noleander
Ah, I see that this article went thru an FA nomination, and I commented there also.
Have you considered contacting user Hog Farm?  They were the FAC reviewer that raised objections about the lack of high-quality 2ndary sources.  The article currently relies heavily on these two sources:
Jackson, Alan A (March 1996). "The 'Diaries' of Robert Jacomb Hood, Railway Engineer" (PDF). Journal of the Railway and Canal Historical Society. 32 (163) –
"Obituary. Robert Jacomb-Hood, 1822–1900". Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 142 (1900): 359–361.
The former is RJH own diaries; and the latter is an obituary that is by an anonymous author (was this obituary based on the diaries?)
It is possible that the same "lack of secondary sources" issue may come up again at a second FA nomination.  Getting some input from Hog Farm would be valuable.
No single reviewer has total authority at a FA nomination, so Hog Farm, or any other reviewer, cannot unilaterally veto a nomination. On the other hand, an article could have absolutely perfect prose ... but if the sources are mostly primary sources, or auto-biographical, some reviewers will object to FA status.  Not all articles can become FA: sometimes there are just not enough quality sources.
I gather there is no biography written about RJH?  Or even a biographical article about him in an academic journal?   If there was, that would help a lot.
You wrote above:  My plan is to fix anything during the peer review then hopefully we can have a nice and easy FAC at a later date. Have you made any significant changes to the article since the FA nomination?  Any significant new sources?
Another thing you can consider is posting a query at the FA nomination Talk page at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. You could summarize the current sources, and ask for input on whether the FA community thinks they are sufficient for FA (be sure you link to the first nomination).  On the other hand, you may not get many replies, and they might be negative.   On the third hand, someone might have a creative suggestion to help with sources.
I'm going thru the prose now:  it looks good ... I'm looking in the FAC and the prose was pretty good at that time.  The reviewers had some minor suggestions, but it looks like you fixed them all.  I did not place a "Support" vote 'cuz I was waiting for the sourcing issues to get resolved.  Reviewer SC says they did not support for some vague reason (perhaps a polite way of saying they agreed with Hog Farm).
In conclusion:   The prose and MOS-compliance look satisfactory.  I suggest you directly contact Hog Farm on their Talk page:  tell them what sourcing improvements you've made, and ask if they would be so kind as to do a quick/informal review of the current sources and give you their input.   If they say "Still not good", you can always disregard their opinion and post a 2nd nomination.  However: if there have not been significant improvements to the nature & quality of sources, there is a chance it may have the same outcome as the first nomination.   Noleander (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)