Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aldwych tube station/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:26, 24 September 2011 [1].

---

Aldwych tube station

Aldwych tube station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Aldwych tube station/archive1

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Aldwych is possibly the London Underground's most famous closed station. Opened in 1907 as a left-over from an altered plan and poorly integrated into the network, the station always suffered from poor patronage and was used during World War II as a secure place to protect the Elgin Marbles from the Blitz. It was closed in 1994 when the lifts wore out, but has had a second career as a filming location, standing-in for operational stations on the network. DavidCane (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 34: Cravens Heritage Trains is the name of the group, and likely shouldn't be italicized
• Be consistent in how you punctuate non-consecutive pages
  • Done for both.--DavidCane (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Aldwych_in_1900_(station_location).png: page number for base map?
• File:Aldwychbranch.png: on what source or data was this based? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Added details to the image pages for both.--DavidCane (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Good to see the railway histories at FAC again. I have not checked this out for prose, but I have some general points for consideration:-

• In the lead, I think you mean "relic" rather than "relict", which is an archaic word for a widow.
  • Of course. An amusing relic of a copy edit.--DavidCane (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Lead image caption. I don't think "Aldwych" is adequate. Suggest "Entrance to Aldwych (formerly Strand) station".
  • Done. Conveniently someone has recently added a new caption parameter to the template.--DavidCane (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Construction section: I find the layout chart a little difficult to follow. First, does this chart have any relevance to the text it is placed within? Secondly, it's quite hard to spot the "track removed" line; it needs to more firmly defined. Thirdly, does the dotted line have any significance? Finally, the numbering of the platforms doesn't seem to serve any function.
  • I think that the diagram is best placed here as it relates to the construction works most closely. I have modified the diagram to make the colours more explicit and added a legend item to indicate that the southbound tunnel passes under the branch tunnels. I removed the platform labels as it read a bit strangely because platforms 1 and 2 were missing (they are used for the Central line) and they didn't add anything.--DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Proposal for extension. Several weaknesses here. In particular, the central part of the section seems a bit thin. We are told that "Planning of the Fleet line continued and parliamentary approval was given in July 1969 for the first stage of the line from Baker Street to Charing Cross", but we are not told when this work began or when this stage (or "phase" - be consistent) was completed. Nor are we given any reason why the second phase was delayed or why, when the work resumed, it took a different route. Also, the section seems to end in mid-air. It needs some kind of closing statement, even if only something like "As of August 1911 no decision has been taken about the future of Aldwych station as an element of an expanded DLR".
  • I have added an explanation on the cause of delay for phase 2 and why it took a different route when it was constructed and inserted your proposed wording for the current status.--DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• I dislike the lapse into listiness in the last section. I suppose the list of films is just about defensible, but the paragraph beginning "Appearances in other media include" should definitely be changed to prose.
  • I pruned the list before nomination to keep it as short as possible. It currently contains some well known films where it was used for minor roles as well as others where the tube had a more significant relevance to the plot. I have turned the other items into prose as suggested.--DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Brian; its always nice to have your comments.--DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I am happy with your responses to my comments. One tiny thing: is it possible to incorporate the "As of August..." sentence within the citation, to avoid the "afterthought" effect? Not a dealbreaker, though. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That works quite well. Done. Thanks Again.--DavidCane (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support I remember it well. Nothing serious struck me as I read through Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Comments - reading through now and will make copyedits as I go. Please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. I will jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

but patronage continued to be low -sounds funny, why not "did not rise" or "did not increase"?

Otherwise, I found surprisingly little to nitpick. Looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I went with the second suggestion.--DavidCane (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Aloha. I love reading Wikipedia articles about railways, especially the Tube. I'm solely going over the prose, giving suggestions on how to make it look a little tighter:
  • Lead
    • "Weekday peak hours only service": as I understand it, there is no peak service on a Saturday or Sunday for obvious reasons. It's your call on what to do with it.
      • I would prefer to keep it as it is. There are two factors here: first, that it was only open on weekdays and second, that it was only open during the peak hours of those days. Removing the mention of weekdays introduces a need for the user to know that peak hours only occur on weekdays and, therefore, adds ambiguity.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Planning
    • "Royal Assent to the private bill was given...": the bill authorising the station isn't previously mentioned. Suggest "The station received parliamentary approval in the GNS&R Act 1899 and was enacted on 1 August of that year", perhaps with the phrase "after receiving Royal Assent" after it.
      • The proposal mentioned at the start of the paragraph is the bill. I have clarified this and that the proposal was for the whole of the line.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • "Prior to the confirmation of the merger..." to the end of the paragraph: this has several issues with how tight the prose is. For example, the extension to Temple is already explained once, so you don't need to do it again in the following sentence.
      • OK. Removed duplication.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • "The branch would have passed and interchanged with the already approved Strand station": this seems like an either/or situation to me; an interchange would pass through the station by definition.
      • Not necessarily; an interchange can happen without the line passing the station as with the other end of the Aldwych branch at Holborn. For readers unfamiliar with the geography of London, it helps to be clear that the proposed branch was to continue beyond Aldwych.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • "The deliberations of a Royal Commission on traffic in London prevented parliamentary consideration of the proposal, which was withdrawn.": it may be prudent to change the order of clauses in this sentence, i.e.: "the proposal was withdrawn after the deliberations of a Royal Commission on traffit in London prevented its consideration in Parliament".
      • I think that becomes less clear than the current wording.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • "The UERL began constructing the main route in July 1902. Progress was rapid, so that it was largely complete by the Autumn of 1906.": I'm not sure about the phrase "Progress was rapid". It looks a mite unnecessary (and, compared to Bakerloo's eight years to do a much longer core section, a little inaccurate) You could easily consolidate those two sentences into one without it.
      • I don't think that it is unreasonable to say that progress was rapid considering they constructed almost nine miles of line, most of it underground, in four years. The GNP&BR's line from Finsbury Park to Hammersmith was 8.8 miles when it opened; the longest of all of the tube lines at that time. The BS&WR line from Baker Street to Elephant & Castle was just 3.6 miles when it opened.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • "As with other UERL stations, the platform walls were tiled with distinctive patterns, which for this station were in cream and dark green." → "All UERL stations were tiled with distinctive patterns; at Aldwych, the platform walls were cream and dark green."
      • The suggestion changes the emphasis from what was done at Aldwych to what was done generally and I don't think it reads through as well to the next sentence.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • "Due to the reduced lift provision, passages and stairs that had been constructed to provide a second route between the platforms and lifts were never brought into use and were left in an unfinished condition without tiling.": the fact they were not fully decorated implies that they were constructed. Try "Due to the reduced lift provision, a secondary route between the platforms and lifts was never brought into use and was left undecorated".
      • I've shortened it a little, but retained more of the original wording to make it clearer how unfinished the walls were - these were very unfinished areas with the tunnel lining rings still visible and no electrics.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Operation
    • "The original 1907 lifts required replacement at a cost of £3 million. This was not justifiable as only 450 passengers used the station each day and it was losing London Regional Transport £150,000 per year. Permission was granted by the Secretary of State for Transport on 1 September 1994 and the Aldwych branch closed on 30 September." → "The original 1907 lifts required replacement at a cost of £3 million, which was not justifiable as the station's low patronage cost London Regional Transport £150,000 per year. The Secretary of State for Transport gave permission to close the station on 1 September 1994, and the branch closed on 30 September." (active voice)
      • I've made a small change, but I think that it is important to state how low the patronage was. Also a loss and a cost are not necessarily the same thing.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Proposals...
    • "Consideration was given to the extension in 1919 and 1948" → "The extension was considered in 1919 and 1948".
      • OK. Done. --DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • "...that these were never proceeded with.": The "with" is unnecessary; you can easily write "that these never proceeded" or "that these were never realised".
      • I don't think that there is any need to change this. The current wording seems more appropriate as the plans could not proceed on their own, someone had to act on them, and "realised" is a bit ambiguous.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The major concern is the "Planning" section; the rest looks fine to me. I'd be willing to give the article's prose a once over if you so wish. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Addendum: I've mentioned this on the talk page, but not here: there is quite a bit of redundancy in the paragraph about the Temple extension. Why would one, and only one, of the proposals be rejected? It seems obvious that either both were approved, or both were rejected. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your suggestions.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • In retrospect, I do realise you are right about interchanges; there's the famous Bank-Monument interchange, and no-one suggests the Circle runs through Bank. And I must've read wrong when I saw "progress was rapid". :) Hence, I support this candidacy; I see no errors preventing it from being featured. Incidentally, the last FAC I commented on (apart from my own for Russell T Davies) was your UERL FAC. I'm so out of practice in metaspace.... Sceptre ^(talk) 01:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Addendum 2: I suggest you include alternative text for the images; I'm not sure if it's an explicit criterion for FA but it's recommended. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Alt text is not a requirement, but I've added some brief words. I thought that had already been done.--DavidCane (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the lead, it is not clear whether "its" and "it" are referring to the branch, the station, or the shuttle service, and there are some awkward shifts between singular and plural. Please review the prose. Ucucha (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've rephrased. How's that?--DavidCane (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.