Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Jacomb-Hood/archive1

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)

• Note, I am replying to comments on here so I can track what I have or haven't done. The PR closed half a year ago so I don't expect responses or anything. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:55, 30 March 2026 (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.
  • Done
• "Law" is capitalised in the lead but not in the body, please standardise this.
  • This has been fixed before I got there
• Born to a working-class family in Bedfordshire -> Would not state this in the lead as it is not explicitly stated in the body.
  • Not done – if I omit that it doesn't make sense to then discuss their inheritance of an estate.
• his career personal finances grew -> Should it be career's?
  • Fixed
• 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.
  • Fixed
• 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.
  • Taken out word 'significant' – his main contribution was organising building the railway serving it.
• Would add Alan A. Jackson's occupation before his name (e.g. historian, biographer). Doesn't need a source per WP:SKYISBLUE.
  • Done

• Furthermore, Alan A. Jackson's name is not consistently presented (e.g. Alan A Jackson, Alan Jackson).

• • Done
• to be of "of Bardon Park, Leics" -> Repeated word.
  • Fixed before I got there
• Some sentences could be trimmed; for example, he was tasked to work under draftsman Charles Heard Wild -> he worked under draftsman Charles Heard Wild.
  • Not done, because Buck sent him there so otherwise it doesn't really make sense.
• Would introduce the LB&SCR abbreviation at the start of the "1846–1850: Early LB&SCR work" section.
  • Done
• 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?
  • ICE = Institution of Civil Engineers (the organisation). MICE = Member of the Institute of Civil Engineers (the title).
• worked on The Arun Valley line -> Why capitalise the "the"?
  • Fixed
• Would remove some links per WP:OL (e.g. Malta, Argentina)
  • Removed location links from travel image + malta and 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.
  • Reworded

• 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.

• • Fixed
• 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.
  • The construction was started, then stopped. It was the idea to restart it that never came to fruition. Reworded.
• 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.
  • Partially done.
• 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.
  • Good point – reworded
• Jacomb-Hood became engaged again to Elizabeth Thornton -> This implies that he remarried Thornton.
  • Fixed
• his wife was listed as a spinster -> Would clarify this is his second wife.
  • Fixed
• Additionally, why not refer to Jane Stothard Littlewood and Elizabeth Thornton by their surnames instead of first names?
  • Because after their marriage they were both Jacomb-Hood, and that would be confusing.
• Would suggest adding a portal bar at the bottom.
  • Have added trains, UK, and engineering.

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)

• • Thank you for your help and sorry for never getting back to you.

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:
  1. Jackson, Alan A (March 1996). "The 'Diaries' of Robert Jacomb Hood, Railway Engineer" (PDF). Journal of the Railway and Canal Historical Society. 32 (163) –
  2. "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.

• • With due respect to HogFarm I feel like we came at a head to each other last time and even though his points were valid it'd be my preference that someone else leads the source review on a second FAC who can judge the article only on its current quality and not past issues.

• 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.
  • This is my exact frustration. The idea that an article I've spent a lot of time on can simply never become an FA because of factors outside my control (especially because I can't even do my own research / write my own biography per Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE) is a bit demoralising.

• 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.
  • If only there were :sob:

• 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?
  • Beyond minor tidy up no, because I left the FAC both annoyed it didn't pass and a bit lost about how to improve it, hence the PR.

• 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)

Template:FAC peer review sidebar

I have added this article to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Comments by A.Cython

I think the other editors have provided significant input, but I can add a couple more comments:

• You rely significantly on the reference "The 'Diaries' of Robert Jacomb Hood, Railway Engineer", nothing wrong with it, but when you cite, you do not provide page numbers. This is a minus for a reviewer who seeks to verify statements in the main text. Make his/her life easier to verify info.
• Additionally, consider adapting Template:Sfn, this would allow to declutter the main text from reference information significantly easing editing in the future. Converting from <ref> format to sfn can be tedious if not an overwhelming process, but in the end it is worth it.
• Note that the sfn format effectively allows to organize the sources used in different categories (books, journals, web sources, etc). Again, this is a boon for the main editor but also for any reviewer. Look at other FA articles in WP and look how they construct and manage their references/citations, e.g., Joan of Arc. A.Cython (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I prefer adding page numbers using {{reference page}}. This is because otherwise the citations section becomes a mix of sfn tags and individual references which I find unhelpful to navigate. Sometimes, like with List of British monarchs (me) or Assassination of Lord Mountbatten (someone else) you can just use sfn for every single cite but I think that wouldn't be worth it for the hours it'd take. If someone wants to verify a statement they just read the cite at the end and go to the page number after the colon. Plenty of FAs, particularly in aviation where there are very long reports, use this format, such as Pan Am Flight 7, Pan Am Flight 214, and Paradise Airlines Flight 901A.