# Talk:Pill railway station

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pill railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article as well. Wonder why these railway articles have been ignored for so long, they're kind of cosy to review. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Would that I knew! Still, I haven't had the spare time to do more article work recently, so it's not a big worry. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Since this article is so short anyway, I'm wondering whether some of the notes can be incorporated into the article body?
I don't see much point - the note about the name of Clifton Bridge wouldn't fit in the routebox, so that would need to be a note anyway. Therefore you may as well have the rest. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Bristol and Portishead Pier and Railway Company is not linked at first occurrence in the article.
Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
"passed through the village" You haven't mentioned that Pill is a village (outside the intro) yet.
Oops. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
There are several railways and companies in the history section that do not seem to be linked.
I think they're all linked at first occurrence in that section. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be no explanation as to why there were less trains on the track over time, and why exactly it was closed?
British railways declined in the mid-20th century, government thought the car would be the way of transporting everyone, and railways were run down following the war. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Could be added for context, lay readers wouldn't know. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find something. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I've modified it to say the Beeching closure was a cost-saving measure, I can't find anything which specifically states why services were reduced post-WW2. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
"the line will not be electrified," What does this mean? Could be noted.
Added a link. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
There are a bunch of duplicate links in the Future section.
I don't see any which duplicate within the future section. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
They are duplicates in the sense that they are already linked earlier in the article. A link should only occur once outside the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with this - to my mind, if something is not an obvious term, it should be linked in each section on the grounds that people frequently do not read the entire article. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm the manual of style seems to be pretty clear on this: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Duplicate links in an article can be identified by using a tool that can be found at User:Ucucha/duplinks."[1] FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
And that is something I find completely wrong-headed, because many times you skip to a particular section and there are no links because it's assumed you read the mass of article beforehand. I'm perfectly aware of tools to remove "excess" links, I just choose not to. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Since the line is being opened again, was there a need for it in the meantime that was ever expressed?
For the line yes, for Pill station specifically not so much. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Anything that could be added on this? FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I've added that there were calls to reopen it due to congestion on the A369. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
"Regular freight trains through the station began to run again in 2002" You don't state it is regular outside the intro.
Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
"3.9 miles (6.3 km) west of Bristol Temple Meads," Only stated in intro.
I clearly got the mileage wrong there, it's in the history section but as 7mi or so. Fixed. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Since the area will change in the near future, I think you should mention the date the infobox photo was taken.
Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I think this is pretty close to passing (the link issue would  probably be taken up at FAC, though), but could anything be added about the interim demand for the route? FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, Easter and all. I should be able to look in to this later today. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The new text looks good to9 me, so will now pass. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou very much for your reviews! -mattbuck (Talk) 16:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pill railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120002540/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Campaign-trains-Bristol-Temple-Meads-half-hour/story-14446079-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Campaign-trains-Bristol-Temple-Meads-half-hour/story-14446079-detail/story.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120708233227/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/100-million-Bristol-Metro-train-network-2016/story-16492523-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/100-million-Bristol-Metro-train-network-2016/story-16492523-detail/story.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151119172320/http://travelwest.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/consultation-leaflet-june-august-2015.pdf to http://travelwest.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/consultation-leaflet-june-august-2015.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)