Talk:Earl's Court tube station/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 22:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the review. It looks very good at first glance. The main issue I see is a lack of any information about the physical configuration of the station - the layout of the platforms and tracks, how many levels, etc. For a GA-caliber article, I'd like to see something like Alewife station#Station layout. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more about the layout, including relevant depths and connecting facilities, but I'm not sure what else I can put in that would be of interest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article still gives no indication how the station is physically laid out: How many tracks are there? Are there island platforms or side platforms? (The British convention for number of platforms is very confusing to this American - in en-us, 2 islands + 2 sides = 4 platforms, whereas en-uk apparently calls it 6.) For the District line, how are the four tracks used - is one island served by eastbound trains and the other westbound, or do all trains to/from Wimbledon use one island and all trains to/from Richmond and Ealing Broadway use the other, or...? Obviously we don't need to get into travel guide information, but information about the design and infrastructure is useful here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a small bit more; however I notice other nearby station GAs, including the FA Green Park tube station don't include any further information (unless I've missed it!), so I'd suggest what we have now is consistent. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear reviewer, for tube stations, it was agreed upon not to include that much information on station layouts unless it is notably complexed such as the stacked Piccadilly line platforms at nearby South Kensington. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The agreement was not to include layout diagrams. It is OK to provide a prose description of the layout, as in, how the tracks and platforms are arranged in relation to one another; the position of the entrances, etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other reviewers may have other opinions, but my opinion from my own GAs is that a basic explanation of how a complex station works is a fundamental part of addressing the main aspects of a topic. Ritchie, what you have added is mostly sufficient, but a sentence explaining how the tracks and services of the District line correlate is needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something like The north island platform and pair of tracks are used by eastbound trains, with trains to XYZ on the north track and to ABC and DEF on the south track if tracks are divided by destination, or The south island platform and its tracks are used by westbound trains if trains to any destination may arrive on any track. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the sort of thing. The track arrangement allows platforms 1/2 to be used indiscriminately by eastbound trains, although platform 1 tends to be used by trains to Edgware Road and platform 2 tends to be used by trains heading for Gloucester Road and beyond. However, with platforms 3/4, which are used by westbound services, it's a different matter: trains arriving from Edgware Road cannot access platform 3, so platform 3 is only used by trains from Gloucester Road (and beyond), whilst platform 4 is mainly used by trains from Edgware Road. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, if you look at the live timetable, after about half an hour in the future you get entries saying "check front of train"; presumably they just chop and change platforms during the day to maximise throughput. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lede

I don't think the starts and ends of the various circle services are worth including in the infobox. "Super Outer Circle" appears to be a neologism - is there any actual use of that term outside Wikipedia?

These were added by GoAheadFan95 (talk · contribs) yesterday, I suggest he should reply here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no comment from GoAheadFan95, I have reduced the infobox dates to the most important events Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's inconsistency whether the apostrophe is included when mentioning the road and the district.

Unfortunately, that's a reflection of the situation on the ground, the road is Earls Court Road, the station Earl's Court, both on Google Maps and in sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the district is "Earl's Court" in the infobox but "Earls Court" in the lede, while both versions are used for the road in the lede. I trust your judgement as to whether the apostrophe belongs in each of the station, district, and road - but for each of those it should be consistent across the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is sorted now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink what Grade II listed means

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Court" is lowercase in one sentence

Got it Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would include a sentence about the configuration - something like The station has two subsurface island platforms serving the four tracks of the District Line, and two deep-level side platforms serving the Piccadilly Line - as an introduction to more detailed information in a later section.
I don't think this is really important information to the lead, no comparable GAs such as London Waterloo station, Euston railway station and Kings Cross St Pancras tube station do this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above. Railway stations are infrastructure, not merely historical curiosities. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, if three other similar GAs don't include it, and the two main sources (Horne and Day / Reed) don't cover it, I'm concerned this may not meet the "focused" part of the GA criteria. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I don't think a second-level heading is necessary for a three-sentence paragraph. I would move it into the history section where appropriate, and I'm not convinced that the third sentence is even needed.

I'm not sure where else it would go - it doesn't seem relevant to the history section. It does seem consistent with other nearby station GAs, such as London King's Cross railway station and Euston railway station. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In both of those, it's part of a two-paragraph section that discusses the location. Here it's an awkward line-and-a-half of text. I won't hold up the review over that, but it's decidedly not ideal. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come over and assist a little since it is something yet to be fleshed out. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have managed to add a little desc about the area. Hope that helps. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19th century

and was little more than a basic wooden hut This doesn't make sense - is this the same as the simple wooden booking office in the next paragraph?
It's the same thing. Removed the first mention. Wolmar says, verbatim, "The early building, a modest affair with a wooden booking office" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the location of the station close to the eastern junction meant that the original station was congested. I'm not sure I follow the logic here.
This sentence is not in the source given (Butt only mentions the dates and the fire) so I've removed it. I've also reorganised the prose in this area a bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Butt tends to only mention dates of opening, renaming and closure. For stations that are replaced by another in the vicinity (not necessarily having the same name), he occasionally gives the distance between old and new stations, or less often, a descriptive note like on opposite side of road. It's extremely unusual for him to give the reason for closure - but in this case, he makes an exception (OP 30 October 1871; CL 30 December 1875. [Destroyed by fire; replaced by 3rd station on opposite side of road]). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As before, "Super Outer Circle" appears to be a neologism. I would remove those words and wikilink "a circuitous service".
As well as the reference to Horne cited, it is also mentioned in HP White's A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain: "A SUPER OUTER CIRCLE ( 1878– 1880 ) ran from St Pancras to Earl's Court via Dudding Hill and the lswr's Acton Curve , which had completed the triangle North of Gunnersbury in 1878". I have added an additional reference. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20th-21st century

Shouldn't the section heading be "centuries"? Or is that a difference between en-us and en-uk?

I had a quick check of the various GAs listed in Wikipedia:Featured topics/London station group and none of them use these demarcations, but instead split the history out into the various lines and schemes. I've followed suit and done that here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the later paragraphs in this section are very short and should be combined.

The problem here is that the paragraphs in "later developments" are all in separate contexts. One talks about Grade II listing, one about the Kensington (Olympia) service, one talks about pollution. It doesn't really make much sense to amalgamate them together. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick search, it appears that Harry Ford was a DR architect; that probably bears mentioning.

Done, with extra source. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any indication what the NO₂ pollution is from - nearby autos, industry, or something within the station?

The London Evening Standard source says the worst cause of pollution is from cars, but doesn't mention that specifically in the context of Earl's Court, so I fear it would be original research to say so. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Services

Having the image and RDT tends to squish the text. At very least the RDT should be collapsed by default.
I confess I haven't got a clue how to do this - Redrose64 should be able to do it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that you mean {{Railways around Earl's Court RDT}}, this uses {{Routemap}}, which allows two parameters |collapsible= and |collapse=. The documentation is scanty (and I'm not a fan of that template and its weird syntax): but what I think you need to do is to edit Template:Railways around Earl's Court RDT to add two lines
|collapsible=yes |collapse={{{collapse|}}}
, and then in Earl's Court tube station, add one parameter |collapse=yes to the {{Railways around Earl's Court RDT}}. You could also move it further up the section, clear of left-aligned images. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Everything looks good here.

Ref #5 is now showing an error.

Done my bad Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 20:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The photographic archive and 1937 interior links are 404s.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Largely just nitpicks left; placing this on hold so you can reply to those. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I’m busy until Sunday, so I’ll look at the issues then. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a handful of things left - track usage, see also, one ref error, and the RDT. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think that's all done, best double check. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good, passing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.