Talk:London Waterloo station/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Errors in service pattern

Have made edits to fix this but if it needs discussion here first that's a-okay. We're missing some services, and there are others which aren't shown. For clarity, there are two Woking stoppers (xx50 and xx20) and one Poole stopper (xx39) that are missing. There are also only 4 fast trains to Guildford which then continue to Haslemere and Portsmouth. Therefore these services should not be listed as "4 to Guildford and 4 to Haslemere" as if they are part of the 16tph to/from Woking.

In terms of how the timetable is configured from Waterloo, there are many services which have been designed to turn out a 15 minute frequency along most or part of a route, (such as the Dorking and Guildford via Epsom service) and thus 4 tph (of which, as such) is surely a better way of describing that route - ie "4 tph to Epsom, of which 2 tph to Guildford, and 2 tph to Dorking", rather than the current listing which treats the 4tph to Guildford via Epsom and Cobham as one, and leaves the Dorking seperate.

The same is the case for services via the Hounslow and Twickenham loops. Sjoh123 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sjoh123: Basically, the timetables make my head hurt, and if you understand them better than me, then I'd say go for it. At the moment, the timetable link that we're using is here. As you can see, in the wikitext when you edit, each service has a tag like {{sfn|SWR|loc=Table 2 : Reading and Ascot to London Waterloo}} - just make sure each entry has some code like that at the end of each line, obviously changing the text after "loc=" to be the actual timetable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Alright then. I noticed you pointing that out earlier in the edit page actually - suffice to say it wasn't me putting SWT links in - they were already there! I'll make sure the SWR ones are in as I do it. Am I alright to just revert it back to my original and then re-source it once I'm ready? Sjoh123 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather it was all done in one hit - I know it sounds like a big faff, but if you start reworking halfway through and get called away by the postman / door to door salesman / charity collector / next door neighbour etc etc etc we'd be left with an article that's half right and half wrong. Does that make sense? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Sure - what I meant is are you happy for me to use the content I'd already written, once I've got the sources in order? Or is there anything there you weren't initially happy with? Sjoh123 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I think so, it sounds right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:London Waterloo station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The usual pedantry commences...

Pedantry? It's comments that will help make an article better - so no problem from my side. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Main Line" all the way through now, apparently, "main line".

Done, there's been some recent debate on WT:UKRAIL about this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• " (/ˌwɔːtərˈluː/)[5]," horrible ref placement, not even sure it's needed.

I don't think so - it's not like Chiswick or Leicester Square which get mispronounced - even tourists from Podunk, Iowa know what "water" is, and one word that rhymes with "loo". And anyone who's old enough will remember Abba. Anyway, I digress. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• "central London terminus " that links to the group, but we probably need to link "terminus" really, as it's a bit of a technical term...

I don't think so, actually, as the London station group includes some wild cards like Vauxhall which are not terminals by anyone's imagination Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, three refs in the lead? Probably no need for any of them (apart from maybe the IPA, but probably not even that), as they should all be in the main body...

I've removed them - they were all repeating stuff adequately cited in the body. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "to Exeter via Salisbury" the first is a place, the second a railway station. Confusing. I would check this consistency (or otherwise) throughout.

In this particular instance, it's because the WEML goes to Exeter Central and Exeter St David's, neither of which seems to have prominence over the other, whereas Salisbury only has the one station. We could change it to Exeter St David's as that's the terminal station and also a main stop on the GWR from Bristol to Plymouth. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• "with a confusing arrangement and platform numbers." doesn't read right.

Reworded Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "redesigned and rebuilt and re-opened " three re's, just one hyphenated, why?

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Waterloo is the busiest railway station in Britain. It is the largest station in the UK..." isn't it the busiest in the UK or does N'Iron have a station I'm not aware of? Why the different entities?

That's what the sources say; however this source says Waterloo is both the busiest and has the most floorspace in the UK. There is no way that Belfast Central comes close. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " twenty-four platforms" 24 per MOSNUM.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Infobox - Hungerford Bridge is piped to Hungerford Bridges which then redirects. Cut out the middle man.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Loads of London bus routes piped to redirects.

All the ones going to redirects are all non-notable (they redirect to a list), so I've reworded this as "Several London bus routes...." - we don't need to list every single bus that goes past the station. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Location section could probably be two paras rather than three with that single-sentence para in its midst.

Done - I think I intended to expand on the single sentence but couldn't find anything suitable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Could link Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Wandsworth, Wimbledon, Kingston, Ditton Marsh and Weybridge" again, a mix of places and stations.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "The station was opened on 11 July 1848 as "Waterloo Bridge Station" and designed by William Tite." for me the logic of that sentence works better in reverse. It's design then the opening.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not wishing to be mean, but do we all know what a "through station" is?

If you think that's "mean", I'd hate to get your opinions on some blocks I've seen ... anyway, clarified a bit Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "no adequate buildings that befitted a full terminus" [according to whom?]

Copyedited Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "grow in Waterloo" in or at?

Neither - reworded Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "the Windsor Station" the?

Yes, that's what the source says. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "became through-station" looks and reads odd, and not sure what it means (see above) so would opt for "became a through station".

Reworded Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "ad-hoc" I don't think that's hyphenated.

I can never remember the rules for dashes - anyway, fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "whilst " I like it, others prefer the more modern (i.e. 20th century) "while".

I think in this context, "and" would suffice Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure of the utility of linking Khartoum, certainly without some kind of explanation for the link.

Agreed - removed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "taxi" is common term, no linkie.

Agreed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "By 1899 Waterloo" comma after 1899.

Oops - fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

• "By 1899 Waterloo had 16 platform roads but only 10 platform numbers due to platforms in different sections of the station or on different levels sometimes duplicating the number of a platform elsewhere" spot the "platform" repeats....

I don't think I platform wrote that platform bit, I just got a platform source. Anyway, fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Instead, an Act passed in 1893 authorising a tube railway." grammar.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Followed by " a 'tube' underground railway" which places 'tube' within apostrophes. Wrong way round.

I've just fixed this in another article, I think. Anyway, it should be deep level underground (with link) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• What's a "branch siding"?

You don't need "branch" here - siding (rail) is a branch by definition (also linked and copyedited) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Construction of the main continued " main what?

Oops, fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "platforms[30] and a 700-foot (210 m) long concourse.[29] " move ugly ref placement.

Fixed (normally this happens when I can find a source citing part of a sentence but not all of it, tag the rest with {{fact}}, and fix it later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " for inspiration.[31] followed by Alfred Weeks Szlumper " something very amiss here.

Must have written this section backwards. Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Portland Stone" has a link at Portland stone and doesn't capitalise Stone either.

Looks like somebody (John?) fixed this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• If you wish to link "counties" then link it to something UK-specific.

That'll be Counties of England (I don't believe any normal service from Waterloo has gone to Wales, let alone Scotland) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " except for an explosion on one of the lines" any more on that? I guess it was from an airborne bomb?

All the source says is "Bomb damage in 1914-18 was limited to the night of 29 September 1917, when explosions occurred on the down main line between A Box and Westminster Bridge Road" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "The main pedestrian entrance, the Victory Arch (known as Exit 5), was designed by Scott and is a memorial to company staff who were killed during the two world wars." reads odd because the last date you gave was 1922 so no WWII existed. Plus most of the time people capitalise World War...

Yes, I see what you mean - this looks like a case where I added a source to prose. The arch probably got updated for WWII, but the source doesn't actually say that, so for now I think "the war" will suffice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "showing Peace sitting on Earth" why obfuscate Pax to Peace? Make it explicit.

Done (I think?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "the Hounslow loop" do we all know what that means?

If I link to Hounslow Loop Line, readers hopefully will Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Southern Railway is piped to a redirect.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "third-electrification" no hyphen required.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "A loudspeaker tannoy system" tautological and tannoy is a trademark ....

Changed to public address system. (I was thinking of horn loudspeaker vs woofer)

• "In 1934, the SR planned to invest £500,000 t" inflate for context please. And all other such values.

Done for the historical values, but do we really need to inflate for 2010 and 2012? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "with significant delays to mail traffic, with over" with...with is a little clumsy.

copyedited Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "British Rail and Privatisation" no need to capitalise the latter.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " to British Railways. Under British Rail, " repetitive and inconsistent.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "of the Southern Region. During the time of the Southern Region" repetitive.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "also under BR." add the abbreviation beforehand, Rail or Railways?!

Both. It was Railways from 1948-1965, and Rail thereafter to 1994 or thereabouts. Hopefully clarified in the article now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "in April 1994[42] and finally, in 2002, to Network Rail.[43]" move ref so it's not so awkwardly placed.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Link Eurostar in the Eurostar section.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Could also link Gare du Nord and Brussels Midi for consistency.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• CTRL isn't used so ditch it.

Done - I was probably thinking of writing more about the CTRL, then didn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "There have been few accidents at Waterloo compared to other stations." context? e.g. compared to say Ipswich railway station?

What about Shippea Hill? Anyway, from the context of the source this means London terminal stations, so clarified Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "overran beyond its" no need for "beyond".

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " a linesman accidentally" what's a "linesman" here?

It's somebody who does the hands on menial work of fixing or replacing the railway lines. There isn't a Wikipedia article for it Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " The engine dropped into the shaft, ending up upside-down and spurting steam everywhere." which shaft and "everywhere"? Sounds like Roald Dahl had a hand in it.

Linked shaft (civil engineering) and copyedited. And surely you mean the Revd W Awdry : "The Fat Controller saw Gordon upside-down in the shaft, with steam spurting everywhere, and scolded him: 'You have caused disruption and delay, Gordon, and I will now have to get Edward to run the express to Southampton.' 'Bollocks', said Gordon." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "two 4COR electric multiple units" what's 4COR? But avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE.

Apparently its a British Rail Class 404, which I would have thought was a "page not found" error Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

.... and reverted by Redrose64 - explanation? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Once you two have quit the battle, either way it's still WP:SEAOFBLUE. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I've reduced it to "electric", since I don't trust the links that were in the prose (I don't have the source given to hand so have to AGF what's in it, and it's not in the book sources I do have here, which only mention more significant accidents). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow, deliberately reintroducing a redirect, that's amazing! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And your problem is? The train was a 4COR, what is wrong with linking that? WP:LINKCLARITY, WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:EGG all apply here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "with an engineers train" presumably an apostrophe is missing here.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "There are over 130 automated" more than.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• ", plus another 27 i" reads poorly, perhaps "in addition to 27..."

I've gone with "with another 27" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Don't use PCSO before explaining it. Some Brits might get PCSO but most of the rest of the universe won't.

Fair point, I assumed people would be more familiar with "PSCO" but it makes sense to define acronyms before you use them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " 2015/16," should't that just be an en-dash?

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Again, Britain or the UK?

As above, I think sources use both interchangeably as they are effectively the same, but I've gone with "UK" for consistency. (And you never know, Arlene Foster may get the £6bn promised to build High Speed 4 from Glasgow to Belfast International via Stranraer Parkway and the North Channel Tunnel....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Waterloo railway station alone is the 91st-busiest in the world" needs an "as of".

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " sees the most changes" what does that mean?

Clarified Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " 1,600 trains per day carrying over 651,000 passengers, " a total of more than... each train doesn't carry "over 651k"....

I've gone with "used by over 651,000 passengers" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• explain tph

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Richmond is a dab.

Fixed. I used to think William Hague's constituency was in SW London, but he wasn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " Guildford via Cobham[81]," etc, bad ref placement

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "(as detailed above in Mainline)" etc, what?

Not a clue. Ask Sjoh123 who put it there :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This was an attempt to make clear that the service had been mentioned before above under the 'mainline' section. i.e. it's a duplication. Feel free to clarify - couldn't think how better to do it myself. Sjoh123 (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• " A-D" en-dash.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Don't bother piping Greenwich to a redirect which directs back to Greenwich......

Should be Greenwich Pier, fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• colloquially known as "The Drain" needs a ref.

Jackson's book does mention it, but I've added a TfL source and clarified Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " Baker Street & Waterloo Railway" and, not ampersand.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "from eight cars to ten." etc. puke. carriages.

I live with an American, vive la difference (also fixed) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " as it will entail a substantial " still "would" isn't it?

Yup, also removed "which will be a technically complex operation" as it sounds like POV Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Former international platforms" probably needs an update given the recent works and recent disruption.

I've added an extra source from last month, but essentially that seems to be it from the news at the moment. Obviously it will need a significant update when the new platforms open in about a year's time Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• BAA is piped to a redirect....

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "connecting London Euston station and " just Euston is fine.

Fixed (I probably meant to dab this to Euston, then forgot, though that would also be wrong, so best I didn't) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " The Generation of Alternatives by Jane Boyd" shouldn't the name of the artwork be in italics?

Don't see why not Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " Derek "Del Boy" Trotter " just Del Boy is fine.

Although I see that's where the article is, I think non-UK readers, or at least those who don't remember Only Fools and Horses are 42-carat plonkers may be confused as to what "Del Boy" means in this context Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Jerome K. Jerome" be consistent with linking, K. or K

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "In Robert Louis Stevenson & Lloyd Osbourne's " and not ampersand in prose.

Fixed (think this was list going to prose) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• War of the Worlds is actually The War of the Worlds.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Consistent ISBN format please.

Done (I think it was just the "further reading", wasn't it?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That's it from a quick Saturday night run-through. Placing on hold pending resolution of pedant's commentary. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with piping to a redirect? Or if you prefer, which of the GA criteria does this fall foul of? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean, gosh, what a comprehensive and thorough review, the like of which is seldom ever seen at GAN, you're really setting a new standard TRM?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Gosh, what a comprehensive and thorough review, the like of which is seldom ever seen at GAN, you're really setting a new standard TRM .... anyway, all points addressed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I'll take a look tomorrow but I am a little concerned over the proto-edit warring to re-introduce complex terms, seaofblue and redirects, if such edits continue then we wouldn't be able to consider this as a stable article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I think I've raised concerns about this meeting the "stability" part of the GA criteria (although largely because the station has just changed train operator in the last few weeks), which is a shame because it's part of the User:Ritchie333/London termini project and I haven't had a GA actually fail in years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, anyone else reverts changes suggested by the review here, go ahead and fail the review per WP:WIAGA #5 "Stability" and trout-slap those who helped to fail it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You cannot fail a GA on the grounds that a link goes through a redirect. It is not one of the GA criteria, and as far as I know, never has been, and is not presently proposed to be. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You can if people start edit-warring over it and the article becomes unstable owing to a content dispute - though would sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid this may need to be paused for a moment, with this Redrose now delibrately including redirects and edit warring to keep terms like 4COR which are meaningless to the average reader. Maybe I'll return to this in a few days when it calms down a little and we can all regain some perspective on what we're trying to achieve here. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

4COR was linked. Your problem with that being? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Why insist on linking a redirect of an obscure term? How does that improve our readers' experience? Anyway, the article is now fully protected and unstable, so this review concludes temporarily. What a shame, we were on our way to a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

So it's obscure. Wow, major crime. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia; and so there are many articles which use obscure terms. Isn't that why we link them? The article is about a railway station, and so is bound to include numerous railway terms, several of which will be obscure. Do we remove them all? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm done responding to such a hostile user. Maybe I'll come back and continue the good work Ritchie and I have put in into these articles at some point in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Waterloo is a well-known London landmark that is known by many people who wouldn't know a British Rail Class 321 from a British Rail Class 390 and aren't at all bothered by that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: ONE is a dusty bin. The other ain't. :) — fortunavelut luna 15:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

To refute just one of the many incorrect and hostile claims, i.e. You cannot fail a GA on the grounds that a link goes through a redirect, who talked about failing anything at any point? Perhaps people interjecting here and at the GA criteria page just aren't commensurate with how these reviews work. At not one single point did the word "fail" pass my keyboard. Nor did any threat that failing to meet every single of my review comments would result in a "fail" either. I actually noted in my review that it was an initial pass over the article. There may be shedloads more to do, I just don't know yet, but we're not at the pass/fail gate yet folks, so cool your jets. The concoction of supposed "evidence" that I'm threatening to fail this for any reason is simply laughable. In any case, I have a busy long weekend ahead, kids and all that to entertain from dawn 'til dusk, but I'm hoping to get back to this review as soon as I can, but if my comments are met with more hysteria and hostility then I'll just jack it in and leave it to someone who's clearly more qualified than me to see it to its conclusion, there are plenty of people queueing up to pass this, and I'm sure that'd be just fine by Ritchie. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"In article to features candidate, there is Problem"

Okay, now things have calmed down and we've been allowed to move on, I've made a few final tweaks and am now satisfied with the article quality, it's a very nice piece of work and wouldn't be too far from FA quality. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

What a long old slog - and yes, a positive result of all the other editors popping by and lobbing their 2c in means the article is going to have less problems and be closer to FA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Fewer... ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That assumes "problems" is a quantifiable entity and not some abstract concept :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Protection

I never thought I would have to apply page protection to stop edit warring by editors at the level of you three. And in the middle of a GA review yet. Trouts all around. No doubt I protected the WP:The Wrong Version - that's my job after all - but I expect you all to honor whatever it is for 24 hours, talk it over, and then come out of this with some kind of resolution. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, @The Rambling Man:, @Redrose64: Okay, to pick this up, as far as I can tell the two actual bits of contentious content that we're warring over are linking to "Hungerford Bridge" instead of Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges and linking to "lift shaft" instead of elevator. (4COR is no longer in the article, so that's a stale issue as far as I'm concerned.) I can say hand on heart that I have no particular preference for one or the other of the two links being squabbled over, and suggest we either take whatever was present in the article before the GA review started, or whatever the current version is. (I understand this conversation has gone over other threads, but it probably wants to be moved here as this is the most obvious place to discuss content disputes to this article) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

My 2p worth. The accidents and incidents section appears to have been dumbed down. As 4COR was the correct designation for the units at the time, it should be stated as such. Maybe better to pipe, linking to the correct class article rather than using the redirect. Mjroots (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

One man's "dumbed down" is another man's "more accessible to the layman reader". I tried your suggestion of linking to the correct article with a pipe, but was reverted, so I don't think that's going to get traction unless a lot more people agree on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to pipe when the link 4COR is WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I would pipe the link. It doesn't look accessible to the casual reader as a series of numbers and letters. Directing readers to where it is via a better way than an alphanumeric code is the Wikipedia way. doktorb _words^deeds 18:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, the redirect target is wrong, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

So why the revert? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Are you asking me, or Mjroots? Do you mean this edit (which wasn't a revert), or another one? For that specific edit, the source (Moody) uses the term "4 COR", albeit with a space. What the source does not do is refer to British Rail Class 404: not only was the operator British Railways at the time of the accident, but these were former Southern Railway units, and the BR (TOPS) numeric classifications were still around twelve years away. For electric multiple units, these classifications came into use in 1972, at a time when the 4COR trains were undergoing mass withdrawal - less than a year after Class 404 was assigned to them, all would be gone.

I note that your earlier edit uses no pipe, even though at 13:16, 19 September 2017, you claimed "I tried your suggestion of linking to the correct article with a pipe". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I've reinstated the EMU class, linked to the correct article but piped to display the correct designation at the time. I also tweaked the display of the M7 class, as the LSWR did not exist then. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Why pipe it, when the link 4COR takes you to the correct page? MOS:REDIR, WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Because when you hover the mouse over the link, it shows the article name, which gives the lay reader a slightly better idea of the target article that 4COR does. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's not get hung up on one link. I agree with Mjroots: think of the lay reader and pipe the link. This article is better than to-and-fro bickering doktorb _words^deeds 11:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

As I've apparently still got this article on my watchlist from the RM, then yes, the EMU class should be mentioned. There isn't any need to dumb it down. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Why the move to St Pancras ?

I think that question could be answered in the article. Were there no reasons given for move of the international trains ? If looking at a London map, then London Bridge station appears to be the best choice of the large stations at London , closest to Dover. Whilst St Pancras, north of the river , at first look at least, seems to be a strange location. Such matters would improve this article, I think Boeing720 (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

London Bridge was already over capacity, and had no room for expansion. St Pancras, on the other hand, had been underused since the 1970s (possibly earlier), and had a design that not only included spare space (the cab road) but also positively encouraged rearrangement in order to fit in more platforms. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Had Broad Street survived into the 21st century, it might have also been a suitable candidate to carry the CTRL. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)