Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hellingly Hospital Railway

< 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:32, 31 January 2009 [1].

Hellingly Hospital Railway edit

Nominator(s): iridescent

This is a bit of an atypical one in that it's a relatively short article. However, as far as I can see it says everything about the topic that it would be reasonable to include, and further expansion would either be filler, or wandering off topic. This went through the GA process a few months ago; following a very long discussion last month it went through peer review, as a result of which it was completely restructured and rewritten following some very helpful suggestions, most significantly from User:Lamberhurst. Although at that time I had no intention of taking it as far as FAC, in the course of the rewriting I noticed that in March we're about to reach the 50th anniversary of its closure and thus the topic will actually get press coverage for the first time in half a century; if it's ever going to reach FA status, it would be nice to reach it by then.

Pre-emptive mention of a couple of issues:

  • I'm well aware that British Isles is a power word on Wikipedia; however, its usage in this article ("the oldest operational electric locomotive in the British Isles") is necessary. The preferred Wikipedia formulation of "The UK and Ireland" doesn't cover the other islands of the archipelago, and Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and the Isle of Man all had their own rail networks at the time in question;
  • Most rail-line articles use standard route diagrams. However, this is such a short line that a diagram would be pointless (it would just be a line with a dot at either end), so I've stayed with the map as opposed to a diagram, despite being non-standard.

Hopefully, most of the other concerns will have already been discussed at the peer review page. – iridescent 18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I took the liberty of tweaking your refs to consistency) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The former is purely a citation for the fact that part of the hospital is still in use although the main building is closed. I agree it's not the greatest of sources, but I can't off the top of my head think of a better way to source this without a messy explanatory footnote. It's easy to source the fact that the main building of the hospital is derelict; it's also easy to source the fact that part of the hospital is still in use (their own website is the most obvious example). However, the countyasylums page – although not necessarily a RS – appears to me to be more useful to any general reader looking for more information; the countyasylums page is itself cited to reliable sources, most significantly to the planning application for redevelopment of the parts of the site not in use. If you think it warrants it it would be easy enough to change the citation to point directly to the planning application, but I personally think the countyasylums page is more useful to a "passing" reader.
The latter normally wouldn't be reliable as it's effectively a fansite. However, in the context in which I used it I think it's a legitimate use; it's used purely as a citation for the statement that "Traces of the railway can still be seen today, notably a single remaining cast iron pole which formerly held the overhead cable, the railway's engine shed, and a short remaining section of track", and contains (dated) photographs of said pole, shed and track. The same statement also appears in Harding which is a more reliable source; I've added a second reference for that as well. – iridescent 18:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do what we've done in the past, which is double cite the first one, include the planning site direct link, as well as the secondary link. Maybe add an explanatory note that the second, less RS source is for the readers convienence. That way, we've got the reliable source covered as well as a handy "For Dummies" version for folks wanting to explore more. that work? It's basically what you've done with the second one, without the explanatory note. I'm not against "ease of use" sources, I just feel they should be linked to a solid source also, and should generally explain somehow why we're putting something less reliable than usual in the sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Part of the problem is that because the Hellingly Hospital article is such a mess (it was a redlink when I originally wrote this article, and is currently an unsourced mess) that facts which would normally not be covered in this article need citation here as well. – iridescent 19:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One hurdle passed... next up ... prose and pictures! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trifling comments: Have you considered using {{Harvnb}} for the book citations? It can make the references section even easier to use for the reader. You might also consider naming the external links first, then describing them (and checking the capitalisation). Skomorokh 01:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are mistaken. Regards, Skomorokh 01:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, would you Adam and Eve it? I'm wrong, as you say. Had to happen one day though I suppose. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No harm to have the wind taken from one's sails every now and again :) À tout à l'heure, Skomorokh 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D'accord. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really a fan of Harvard referencing on articles with only a couple of books in the bibliography. When there are dozens of sources cited, it makes things easier on the reader; however, because most of our editors don't understand them, it makes it harder for anyone else coming along to add new material. If anyone thinks it warrants it I've no objection to changing them, but on an article this short with only three books in the bibliography, I don't think it's really necessary. – iridescent 13:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you took this image from Harding, you need to list that as the source, and also include the original publication information. Awadewit (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RS, which looks like it will be Harding, should go on the image description page, not in the caption. Awadewit (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done; I've also added a link to the 1957 Stones article showing a similar map. – iridescent 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add the information about the platform to the image description. Awadewit (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done, although whether that's enough to convince whoever decides these things at Commons is now all inthe hands of the deletionists. I've also added a date for the platform shortening to the article – it had somehow slipped out (or never been in). – iridescent 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully these issues will be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Hellingly Railway 1906.jpg is from an advert for Robert W Blackwell & Co, Ltd, appearing in Great Western Railway Magazine, June 1906. I don't have the page number as I've taken it from a facsimile of the page reproduced in the Harding book; appears on p9 of Harding.
  • As regards citing the two hand-drawn maps, I'm not sure how one would go about it. It's easy enough to source them – the route map appears in multiple sources (for example, p2 of Harding), as does the diagram of the station platforms (appears on p12 of Harding). I've added citations to the image captions to this effect, although I think it makes the captions look somewhat messy.
  • Regarding File:Hellingly Railway Station.jpg, I'm baffled as to why it's up for deletion, but as it's Commons-hosted there's nothing I can do about it. It demonstrably dates from before 1923 (as it shows the wooden platform which was demolished in 1922); it's a scan of a postcard which User:Lamberhurst assures me was postmarked 1915, and I've no reason to doubt that. It's not essential to the article (it was only added a couple of weeks ago) so even if it's deleted it's not a disaster. – iridescent 19:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put it up for deletion primarily because there was a copyright claim to the image while there was no clear evidence supplied of its nature (date and postcard). The image was directly taken from the hobbyist site (who received it courtesy of a private collector). This is not a photo, which one can not dispute the moment of its creation. It is a painting, which an artist can recreate the scene from earlier photos or drawings. Furthermore, postcards can be printed years after certain events as commemoration series; hence there is a need for proof that this was published before 1923 to qualify for PD-1923. Jappalang (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm virtually certain it's a hand-tinted B&W photograph, not a painting based on the photograph. The original B&W photograph appears on p3 of Harding (credited to Lens of Sutton) – it's also used about 15 seconds into the Vobes video (which has been removed from the external links as it's a paysite, but this photo's in the free-preview section). – iridescent 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is hand-tinted, then the colorized work could be a new copyrighted work (depending on the artistic interpretation). The issue is the lack of proof that the colored work is in the public domain. PD-1923 means that the work was published (distributed en masse legally) before 1923, not created before 1923. Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say wait & see what Commons says. If it's kept, then there's no issue; if it's deleted, then it's a nuisance rather than a disaster. – iridescent 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once the deletion issue is resolved, the image issues will be resolved. Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image has raised the broader question of whether for every postcard, it is necessary to upload not only a scan of the front, but also the reverse to show when it was postally-used. I personally think this is a bit ridiculous, and have raised the issue here for those who want to comment. As an IP practitioner, I can confidently say that there is nothing legally wrong with this image, it's more a question of internal Commons rules. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to the FA criteria, I think when an article has an image that is up for deletion in it, the article has become unstable. Once the deletion debate is resolved (I'll leave the details up to the Commons folks), I will strike the oppose. If the Commons debate starts to develop into a long-winded wiki-drama, I would recommend removing the image until the decision is made. Awadewit (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree and have removed it temporarily until the issue has settled, as it's not essential to the article. User:Durova has made the very good point that while it may not meet the UK copyright laws (as required by Commons) it does meet Florida laws, and consequently can be hosted on Wikipedia itself as free-use even if Commons deletes it – but if "potentially unfree image" is the only thing holding the FAC up, it seems easier to remove it until the issue is settled. – iridescent 17:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking oppose. I hope that debate is resolved soon. Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Slight oppose - for now, mainly from some glitches

  • Okay, I"m unclear if George Hine designed the railway or the asylum? Which was it?
    • Added a clarificatory note – iridescent 11:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the electrification in the lead, but it's not mentioned in the body of the text where I would expect it, the construction and opening section.
    • At the time of the hospital's construction (1900-1902) the railway was still running on steam; it was converted to electricity once the construction was finished, as the generators were in the newly-built hospital. I've tried to keep the technical aspects of the operation of the railway together in the "motive power" section. Since the electrification would need to be mentioned in the "motive power" section anyway, I'd rather not duplicate it, but if you think it's necessary can certainly do so. – iridescent 11:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not how I'd do it, but that's why we're all different. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of railroad terms might need explanations "partially gated"
    • That one links to level crossing which (hopefully) explains the concept; I've removed the "partially" which I think makes it appear confusing. I'm reluctant to get into detailed explanations of terms which aren't essential to the article, especially when the bluelinked article is very detailed (as with the level crossing article). – iridescent 11:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I"m not looking for a long explanation, but something so that readers don't have to click through to the linked article just to get the sense of what is meant. Removing partially here does the trick for this one. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Route section, third paragraph "As it approached the hospital, the line split; the southern fork led to a siding to the northwest of the hospital, while the other turned sharply right through almost 180° before splitting again." This sentence just reads awkwardly to me, especially the last phrase. Perhaps "... while the other turned sharply right almost 180 degrees..."?
    • Reworded to cardinal directions ("turned east and south…") – iridescent 11:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few wikilinked terms might benefit from a capsule description near them. Specifically "sidings", "points", "trolley pole"
    • As with "level crossing" I'm reluctant to; all three of these are relatively insignificant to this article, and bluelinked to articles which explain the concept. Realistically, most of the readers of this article are likely to have at least a basic knowledge of rail operations, and "the line had no automatic points (switches that guide trains between different sets of tracks at rail junctions)" or similar – which I think is what you're suggesting – seems to me to be a waste of space. If you think it's necessary I can certainly include them, though. – iridescent 11:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above. And don't sell this short, you might make the main page, which would expose the article to lots of non railfans. Also you may get locals looking to learn about local history, school kids needing to find new places to vandalize... The idea is that the reader doesn't have to click through to the linked article to get the sense of what is meant in this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about this? I don't want to get into technical descriptions of (for instance) the difference between a trolley pole, a bow collector and a pantograph – anyone who really cares can look it up, and diverging into technical explanations would swamp the article – this seems a reasonable balance between "assume no knowledge" and "assume full knowledge". – iridescent 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • works perfectly! That's really all you want to do, is give enough information that you don't lose your readers when they go off to another article! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operations section, first paragraph first the last bits "...and the agreements between the hospital (renamed the East Sussex Mental Hospital in 1919) and the LBSCR updated." Shouldn't there be a "were" between LBSCR and updated?
I'll be happy to support when the above concerns are taken care of. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In the interests of full disclosure I've done quite a bit of copyediting on this article, but I've had nothing to with its content, --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward support but a few minor issues:

  • "hospital authorities no longer considered passenger usage of the line to be economic" - 'economic' should be 'economical' in both this sentence and the later one, I believe.
    • Personally, I marginally prefer "economic" as an adjective, in the interests of, well, economy, but have changed to "economical" in both instances – iridescent 12:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the other turned sharply right through almost 180° before splitting again" - This phrasing is a little ambiguous; is 'right' an adverb ("right through") or a relative direction? I presume it's meant to be a direction, in which case a cardinal direction would be preferable.
    • Amended (see re to Ealdgyth above)
  • I dislike the breaking-the-third-wall note on ref #25 (Cracknell). It looks like the content is double-cited; if so, could the Cracknell link be moved to External links, thus avoiding the need for the RS disclaimer?
    • See the discussion with Ealdgyth above (in the 'What makes the following reliable sources?" discussion); the current arrangement is the result of that. Basically, the fact being cited is that part of the building is still in use as a hospital but the main section is derelict. The planning/zoning application (currently ref #24) does confirm this, but one has to dig around in there to find it; the Cracknell page isn't as reliable a source, but explains the situation in plain English. I know "it's useful" is generally A Bad Argument, but I think it applies here. – iridescent 12:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for making you repeat yourself on that one; I should have assumed Ealdgyth had already raised the issue. In the interest of avoiding speaking directly to the reader, I tried to locate an alternate RS for that factoid. How about this article from The Argus in September 2008, which includes:
"Christopher Fincham, the trust’s former director of finance ... confirmed that part of the site was still being used to treat and care for psychiatric patients, including Ashenhill, a medium secure unit, and also a halfway hostel. But the main Victorian buildings were boarded up, roofs have caved in and damage caused by fires started by vandals."
If this meets the need, the countyasylums page could go into External links, without the disclaimer. Maralia (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a series of Hellingly shots at Flickr; unfortunately they are all of the hospital itself, but some of them are really striking. Maralia (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of them are creative-commons licenced, though, and given the (ahem) difficulties the images on this article have been having, don't want to include anything that isn't 100% sure to be free-use. The Abandoned Britain gallery linked in the article (click the link at the bottom of each section) includes some absolutely extraordinary images, as does the Vobes documentary (removed from the EL section as it's a paysite, but even the free section is quite interesting). As I've said elsewhere, part of the problem with this article is that the Hellingly Hospital article is in such poor shape, there's a temptation (and sometimes a necessity) to cover things in the railway article that should really be covered in the hospital's article, and I want to try to avoid that as much as possible. – iridescent 12:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually those are the results of a Commons derivative license search; I believe they are all compatibly licensed, but I understand your reluctance to include hospital-only shots. Maralia (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support. I like the article, but a few things are bothering me:

  • The one footnote at the start of the lead section. To me, leads read better without any footnotes, and to have just one there makes one wonder why the rest of the lead isn't footnoted as well. In this case, perhaps the "Construction" section should say "Construction work on what would become known as Hellingly Hospital ..." and then put the footnote on that, to explain the whole name history.
    • I've moved it out of the lead and appended it to the first paragraph in the "Construction and opening" section. I really don't want to move it out of the footnotes and into the body text – and consequently double the size of the section – however, I think it's necessary to include it as an explanation of why the hospital is referred to by so many different names, and why outdated terms such as "lunatic asylum" are used. – iridescent 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs to motivate the article a bit better, by saying that Hellingly Hospital was enormous (thus needing a railway line). In other words, I presume not all hospitals of the time had their own line? The lead might also say it was a mental hospital, as this adds to the flavor of the overall article.
    • I've added "psychiatric" to the lead. To be honest, I'm not sure if the hospital was all that large (I don't have a source for patient numbers, or comparative sizes for other hospitals of the period, but the County Asylums page describes it as "a smaller version of the asylum at Bexley", implying that it wasn't abnormally large). The practice of laying temporary rail lines to transport materials for large construction projects isn't particularly unusual even now (if you look on this Google Earth image you can see a rail line carrying material for the 2012 Olympic stadium) and would presumably have been more common in the days before bulk road haulage; what was unusual was that the hospital kept the railway in service after construction. One could obviously speculate about the reasons for that – lack of adequate road transport, and electricity generated from coal burned on site instead of drawn from the power grid, would seem the obvious reasons – but in the absence of sourcing, it would be IMO too far over the line into original research. – iridescent 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it true that the line was used to transport patients, during its passenger years before 1931? This should be made clearer. Did the passenger cars have any special provisions for these being mental patients, such as restraint systems or attendants to watch over them? Unless this asylum was more enlightened than most of its era, I shudder to think about what went on inside it once the train got there ...
    • I've reworded the second paragraph of the "Construction" section to try to make this clearer; patients would get off "normal" trains onto a separate, isolated platform at the mainline station, and transfer across onto the hospital railway which would take them into the hospital. (This image would have made the explanation easier, but is subject to dispute over its status – see above.) The railway only had a single passenger car, and I can't find any descriptions of it; photographs of it don't show anything particularly unusual. – iridescent 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did the passenger load drop off so much by 1931? Because there were fewer patients (and thus visitors) at the hospital, or because they were travelling there by alternate means, such as motor cars?
    • I would assume the combination of a drop in patient numbers due to the WW1 population dip, and , and improved alternatives (motor cars and buses, improved roads due to wartime construction, and cheap war-surplus ambulances) but can't be certain; I can source the drop in people using the railway, but not the reasons. – iridescent 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are siding names in italic font? Line names aren't and station names aren't, and sidings are less important than both of those; is this some kind of railway writing convention?
    • They weren't when I wrote it! Someone else changed them and, having no strong opinion, I didn't see a point in changing them back. To be honest, I'm not sure we even have a policy for it; because stations almost always have their own articles and the bluelink itself acts as the highlight, the situation doesn't often arise. On the only other examples I can think of, Alderney Railway and Hammersmith & Chiswick, the intermediate stations are just shown in plain text. I've removed the emphasis altogether, as I don't think it's necessary. – iridescent 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The acronym LBSCR is never introduced.
    • Fixed – that was an artifact of my reshuffling the sections. – iridescent 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone else said above, footnote 25's "This is not a reliable source ..." is horrible. We can't break into WP-speak in our articles. The "County Asylums" website can be included in the External links section as a useful site (which I gather was your goal in including it), and then you can do what you need to do in this footnote to support the text statement. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's all of them; let me know if you have any concerns still outstanding after that!
OK, thanks for the changes and responses, looks good! Wasted Time R (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (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/Hellingly_Hospital_Railway&oldid=1136097421"