Talk:Snaefell Mountain Railway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleSnaefell Mountain Railway was one of the 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 23, 2005Good article nomineeListed
April 6, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Grade?[edit]

What is steepest grade of this line?

Syd1435 23:01, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations[edit]

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review[edit]

This article is currently at Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 11:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was delisted by 3-0. LuciferMorgan 20:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing at bow collector[edit]

A recent addition has raised the interesting point that the bow collectors are rigid, not sprung. Can anyone help with sourcing for this? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bow collectors are sprung (an adaptation of the Hopkinson Bow collectors) rather than rigid as described on page 158 of the publication Isle of Man Tramways Pearson (1970). agljones(talk)19:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Snaefell Mountain Railway. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]