Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:57, 12 June 2008 [1].

Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway edit

Self nomination. This article is a sister article to the City & South London Railway article that I successfully nominated for Featured Article status in November last year. Unlike the previous one I haven't taken it through a Good article review first as I have followed the recommendations made for that article in the creation of this. DavidCane (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 55 needs a last access date and the publisher doesn't need to be linked. (Photograph of Euston Road Staton...)
Done --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for current ref 56 (1908 Tube map)
Done --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for current ref 81 "Photograph of Lord Ashfield..."
Done --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a self-published source, I suppose that this is not reliable in the sense defined by Wikipedia, but the quality of the information contained on the site is high and it is produced by people with the first hand experience of working on the system. --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. It really needs to meet the guidelines and policies. Any chance of replacing with another source? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 71 "Clive's Underground line guides ..." is lacking a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
I've changed the ref 71 links to ref 57. The information was available from both, but I was separating date information from name information by using two sources. the CULG site is also self-published but is very highly regarded in the WP:LT as a source of detailed information on-line. I have also linked to it in refs 1 and 46 as it leads to so much other information on the tube that readers may find interesting. --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay. I was unable to check links with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link checker tool does not seem to like punctuation and ampersands in page titles. --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until copy-edited. Particular problems are (1) at the sentence-level—how ideas are integrated into some of the sentences, how commas are used (not enough), and unwieldy snakes, and (2) redundant wording, as pointed out by my colleague above.

  • "The company was established in 1891 but construction was much delayed while the necessary funds were raised and many variations of its route were proposed before work began." This second sentence reads poorly: a comma would help the reader (1891,); too many ideas jammed into it, particularly the last one—its very close relationship to the earlier ideas is unclear.
  • "The inspiration for the promoters of the HStP&CCR was the initial success of the City & South London Railway (C&SLR) which had opened in November 1890 and which had seen large passenger numbers using its trains in its first year of operation." Comma before the first "which"; remove the second "which" as an ellipsis. The old "noun plus -ing" problem: see these exercises in how to fix it. Perhaps here, just change "using" to "on". No, better, just remove "using its trains", since it's redundant.
  • "Although the company had obtained the permission it needed to construct the railway, it still had to raise the capital with which to fund for the construction works." TONY (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't want to sound like Tony's pet parrot, but this article is hard-going. Often two, sometimes three, unrelated ideas are squashed into one sentence and please, where are the commas? Tony is possibly too modest to suggest that you read this: User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating_redundancy. GrahamColmTalk 19:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Done --DavidCane (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I am the author of both of these and have tagged them as such. The reason they are not currently in SVG format is that I have had major problems getting a properly formatted output from my software in this format. It is something I intend to look into. --DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Yerkes002.jpg should have its border removed. Also, it's not clear who the author of the work is or when/where it was first published.

Kelly hi! 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The image page gives the source as Catalogue of paintings and sculpture in the collection of Charles T. Yerkes, New York, 1904. It is probable that it was taken from a catalogue published by Yerkes as he intended to leave his collection to the city of New York to establish an art gallery. As it is dated over 100 years ago and is in the public domain in the US it should be acceptable to use it. --DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for the moment):Comment: A few general observations before some specific points.

  • The multiplicity of acronyms is off-putting. Encountering some of these late in the article, I found I'd forgotten what they mean, and had to keep referring back. It's difficult, I know, but there is a real readability issue here.
I agree there's no easy way to get around this, particularly with the complex history of ownership of the line. I've been following the general principle that having to read "Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway", "Great Northern, Piccadilly & Brompton Railway" and "Underground Electric Railways Company of London Limited", and similar, multiple times throughout the article was tiring. I will have a look through the article and see if any acronyms that haven't been mentioned for a while should be restated in full - assuming that this does not breach any style guidelines.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commas, usually lack of them, is a real problem which again affects readability. Can you get a red-hot punctuation expert, preferably one of those who unfailingly home in on my articles, and get them to do a full scale comma audit? I’ve listed some instances below, but there are more.
  • I was surprised that the article ended where it did, 70 or 80 years ago. I would have thought it worthwhile having a brief section bringing the story up to date. The line still exists – I frequently travel on it – and it has in recent years attracted nicknames such as the Misery Line because of its overcrowded and dilapidated state. It would be useful, too, to have some comparative passenger figures for today.
Like the City & South London Railway article which got FA status last year, I ended the history at the formation of the LPTB in 1933 because the CCE&HR effectively lost its individual identity then. It could be argued that the article should end in 1910 when it was merged into the London Electric Railway or in 1926 when it joined with the C&SLR. There is a separate Northern line article which is linked in the lead that continues the story. I have added a for later history see Northern line at the bottom of the article.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful, but I still believe that the article could be better rounded off by a transitional sentence at the end, instead of the present rather abrupt ending. Also, re-reading, in the first line of the article you say "CCE&HR....was a deep level..." etc. This implies it no longer exists. The name has gone, but the line remains, so, surely: "...is a deep level".... Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a legacy section which takes things a bit further including that fact that the Northern line is the busiest on the Underground. I don't think the "is a deep level tube railway" works. From a start as an independent company, it is now completely absorbed within the Northern line from a route point of view and within the Underground system from an administrative perspective. The last sentence of the lead does state that it is now part of the Northen line, so I think it is clear that it has continued as part of that.--DavidCane (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ending is definitely neater. Having, though, introduced the "Misery Line" tag, I suppose you have to cite it! (or quietly drop it). I strongly disagree with you over retaining "was" in the first line. The immediate impression is that the line doesn't exist any more. The article is about an existing, on-going railway that has passed through many phases of development and ownership, but it's still there. It's something which, in terms of the overall presentation of the article, I recommend you reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Misery line refs added.
But the CCE&HR does not exist any longer. As a company it is defunct in the same way that the Great Western Railway or British Rail are, notwithstanding that the infrastructure remains in use today. I have reworded the introduction to differentiate between the company and its infrastructure. --DavidCane (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have handled that well. I have struck the oppose & will re-read the article tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to more specific points:-

  • Lead:
    • In an article on a British railway line, miles should be the primary measurement of distance, not kms
    This was discussed in the FA review of the C&SLR here. The reason distances are given in kilometres first is that is what the Underground uses as its native format. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Northern Line first mention – Line needs a capital letter
    Personally, I agree, but there has been a major debate about the capitalisation of "line" here and here. As a result, in accordance with London Underground style, all the Underground lines' articles are named in the form "XXX line" rather than "XXX Line". --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case, see last word of lead, and your note/references [1], [67], [84] Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Changed to lower case. Thought I'd got all of those.--DavidCane (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The expression "Underground Group" needs explaining – I’ve not met the expression before. The sentence should continue "were (not was) taken into public ownership”
    Done. The Underground Group is another name for the UERL including the buses. I have changed this to UERL.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence of the lead needs clarifying/simplifying
    Done--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Establishment
    • The sentence "On the branch, stations were planned for Euston and Kings Cross" repeats information given a couple of sentences earlier.
    I have merged the two sentences on stations so it's not such a repetition. I want to keep a full list of the stations originally planned here because the subsequent developments in the route add and omit from this. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parliament should be capitalised when it refers to the institution. It's OK to say "parliamentary session", however
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comma alerts: needed after "parliamentary session" and "deep-tube railways"
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deciding the route
    • Two sentences for reconstruction:-
      • "On 24 November 1894 notice was published of a new bill seeking…"
      Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "On 23 November 1897 notice was published of a bill to change…"
      Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hampstead Heath controversy
    • Remove definite article from section heading
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I presume "tress" is a typo?
    Damn. Yes. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The para beginning "A second railway company…" is over-detailed. It isn't necessary, for example, to record that Edgware was in Middlesex but is now in the Borough of Brent. This is irrelevant to the railway.
Shortened. Need to keep some of this in as the E&HR comes up again later.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction
    • By now I've forgotten what UERL is, so a reminder would be handy
    • Work continued below ground "for a while". Not encyclopaedic
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More comma alerts: required after "December 1905" and "Lots Road Power Station"
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A semi-colon needed after "MDR". Delete the "and", and continue: "the proposed Chalk Farm…" etc
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comma needed after "construction" in penultimate sentence
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opening: "Gate-men" doesn’t warrant a capital
It was their job title so I have left it in. There was an anachronistic payment of "Gate-man's allowance" made to tube train guards until the 1970s to compensate them for not carrying out that role. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Embankment 1910-14: awkward use of bullet point here
I have presented it this way so that the creation of a new station stands out from the text and is consistent with the lists of stations in the opening section and the subsequent two sections.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hendon and Edgware: The sentence beginning "With war-time restrictions…" definitely needs dividing into two. It also contains "war time" in both hyphenated and unhyphenated form
Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kennington
    • full stop, not comma, needed after "parliamentary session"
    Done. --DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • acronyms needs sorting out in last para
  • Move to public ownership
    • Morrison deserves a better description than (later MP). He held lots of Cabinet posts in WWII and after.
    I have added that he was Transport Minister which is probably most important for this article as it was he who introduced the LPTB bill. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • LCC needs direct referencing to London County Council
    Done. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After several years…" is vague - can it be tightened?
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last sentence: do you mean "From this date" or "On this date"?
    I do. Done. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article tells an interesting story, but needs considerable polish before FA. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Charing_Cross,_Euston_%26_Hampstead_Railway/archive1&oldid=1138457313"