Talk:South Kensington tube station/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• The title seems to violate the naming conventions. If "tube station" is part of the station's name, then it should be capitalized; otherwise, it should be in parenthesis. There seems to be that all British stations follow this inconsistency, so I will not hold it against the article in this review.
  • "tube station" is not part of the station's name, but the name of the article is in accordance with the naming convention for stations in London which can be found here.--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• The lead and body do not comply with the expected structure:
  • There should be a short summary of the history in the lead. Leads are to summarize, not just introduce, the article.
    • An additional paragraph has been added.--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • There should be a separate section called "service" or something, which explains the service at the station and most of the other information contained in the lead. There should similarly be a some mention of the facilities or similar, although this can be covered in the "service" section.
    • A services section has been added given operating frequencies and service start and end times. Due to the high frequency of the services, TfL does not publish traditional timetables identifying exact arrival and departure times but specifies approximate intervals between trains.
      • Look good. How about merging the "transport links" (which is a single sentence) into the service section. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • What do you mean with regard to facilities?--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
      • What I was thinking of was something down the line Mortensrud (station) or Forskningsparken (station). Looking at these articles again, it really isn't that important, as it is covered in the history section. The other thing is what institutions and neighborhoods are close by; this seems to be only covered in the lead. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• You should stick in "United Kingdom" (don't need to link) in the first or second sentence to establish context. London is hugely famous, but just in case—there are also other places called London
  • Disagree. I don't believe that this is necessary for the same reason that the manual of style discourages linking of obvious and common phrases. The London Underground is world famous in its own right and linking London in the first sentence is almost unnecessary as well for this reason.--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Don't underestimate the ignorance of people. Most people have heard of London, yes, but I have met some very, please excuse the phrase, stupid people, who would need help placing London or similar "world cities" in a country. I don't see how it hurts, and it can be helpful for the very few. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• "Piccadilly line" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized as such (i.e. a capital "L" in line). Similarly, this seems to be an issue with various lines throughout the article.
  • This has been debated several times and the consensus and convention is to use the format seen here, so that "Piccadilly", "District" or "Circle" are the names and "line" is just a description. This is the style that Transport for London itself uses.--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
    • That is very peculiar, and in my opinion a clear violation of common English grammar, since 'Line' is clearly part of the common name. This is also the naming used throughout the rest of Wikipedia for lines, and all other reliable sources for other systems. If the project has debated itself to that conclusion here, I will not hold it against the GA. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• At "The original station", make sure the reader understands you are talking about South Kensington and not Westminster.
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think the MOS allows anything to be in both italics and quotation marks. Train services can be in italics, but not quotation marks. (fixed)
  • Agreed. That's probably been like that for a long time.--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• Don't use hyphens, but endashes, for punctuation, see WP:DASH. (fixed)
• By no means a GA requirement and just a tip: nearly all the paragraphs under "Sub-surface station" start with "on [date]", "in [date]" and "from [date]". Try to vary a little more the start of each paragraph, by introducing the topic before the date, etc.
• Currency conversions need to be "as of [year]".
  • The {{Inflation}} conversion template used, is designed to update automatically as time passes and new data is published so the conversion is always as current as possible. A flexible "today" is therefore better than a fixed year.--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I was not aware of this template. But then it is okay. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• The last four paragraphs of "sub-surface station" are too short and should be merged, particularly the one-sentence paragraph.
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• There is an inconsistency in the use of italics on the various Circle services.
  • I have used italics on first use to "coin the phrase" and non italics subsequently as I find that repeated italics is tiring for the reader and implies emphasis.--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Don't think this is permitted according to the MOS (italics shouldn't be used to coin the phrase), but this goes beyond the limit of the GA criteria. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Need a hyphen in "Metropolitan Line-operated"
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• There are a lot of external links. Are not many of these images in the public domain, and could therefore be uploaded to the Commons?
  • All of the linked images on the London Transport Museum photo archive are claimed to be copyright by TfL. As this is a historic archive of in-house documents, it is quite possible that, whilst many of the images contained on the site are very old, they have not been published until they were presented on the website and so under UK copyright law are still subject to copyright.--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am placing the article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• There are a few more tips, but I'll pass the article and trust you amend; they are not really issues at the level of GA anyway. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)