Talk:Elephant & Castle tube station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 12:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a go. I can't see any obvious reason to quickfail on anything from a cursory look, so a full review will follow.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like Vincent60030 (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some general copyediting of the body.

Lead (Done)

Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the article is a little under 10K of prose, so you probably don't need as big a lead. Done shortened it :) Vincent60030 (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A number of facts here, such as basic geography (travelcard zone) are not in the body - the lead is designed to summarise everything else Done added into the geography subsection. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, I wouldn't worry about specific dates, just the year should be okay. We can then keep the full dates in the body Done shortened the dates. Vincent60030 (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of sources in the lead; these probably don't need to be here, or should be moved to the body
Actually, very challengable sentences need to be sourced in the lead so that the readers won't 'challenge' it if they do not want to read the rest of the article. So, that's what I usually do for all GAs so far. =p Vincent60030 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I did some copyediting where I took out some refs. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! All issues fixed in this section. :D Vincent60030 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A girl born at the station in 1924 was the first baby to be born on the Tube" - if she was born at the station, she wasn't born on the tube! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Then how should I rephrase it? XD Vincent60030 (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can probably just leave it out of the lead, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Actually I plan to have that for DYK so it is quite significant to leave it there though. Btw, can you check the new source that I have added? Vincent60030 (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't check it because it's subscription only so I'll have to AGF it is correct. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: No, I mean the ref titled as Vertical Transport that cites there are no escalators. Lol Vincent60030 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. Yes, we agreed that website reliable (per precedent in other GAs) and it says the station was closed in 2003 because of no escalators, so we can verify the claim there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sounds good. :D

Like Vincent60030 (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Line (Done)

"Between 1883–86, a route was planned..." - where are these years in the source given? * [1]
Resolved

I've took this from the C&SLR article page. Actually, there were many dates about this where it change station location or change route blah blah blah where there are so many dates. So, I've shortened everything so that it focuses on the first section of the railway only. If I put in too much info, it would be irrelevant. Is it ok about it? =p BTW check the C&SLR article if you don't get what I mean. Vincent60030 (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, the dates are derived from the individual London Gazette sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like Vincent60030 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"to Stockwell" - does this fact need two inline citations?

The more the 'merrier'. More sources are better haha. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The entire route was approved on 25 July 1890" - this sentence is quite short; can it be merged with another one? Done I've combined it with the next sentence. Vincent60030 (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"and Clapham Common" - the source says "High Street, Clapham" (ie: Clapham High Street), which is not the same
Resolved

not sure about this. Have to check with DavidCane as I've found this source from the C&SLR article. Vincent60030 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The station (which was the southern terminus from 1900 to 1926) was always named Clapham Common; it is situated on Clapham High Street. When railways were at the planning stage, the names of stations were often not finalised, so the positions of stations were given in terms of identifiable existing locations, such as streets. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, Redrose64. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Had a feeling Redrose would know the answer - cheers! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/northern.html a reliable source? (same problem in several sections)
Resolved

Many articles like this one have used this source ages ago. Well, I've actually compared the info on this website with other sources. All historical information (so far) are 100% accurate. Vincent60030 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you list some good or featured articles that have passed a review with it in? I think for the facts contained, I'd be fine for an external link, but while some amateur websites are written by genuine experts who do get called on for more reliable publications, others are just a collection of second or third hand information off the internet, which have an alarming tendency to get things wrong at just the most inappropriate moment. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Acton Town tube station, Angel tube station, Arnos Grove tube station, Highgate tube station and Oxford Circus tube station. That's all I remember for now (this also applies to Clive's Bakerloo line ref). ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't argue with that then! Consider it acceptable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like Vincent60030 (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's annoying that you can't search in a page on the London Gazette, but I can't pick out where the quoted word "problematic" is in this source Done I've rephrased it so that the source supports the sentence. Vincent60030 (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Near Borough, the new tunnels would branch off to London Bridge to form an interchange with the mainline station and then north through the City of London to Angel." - this doesn't appear to be cited to a source

Again, have to check with DavidCane about this. (Same as one of the above). However, there are no inline citations in the C&SLR article though. :( Dont think I can find sources unless David could find one. Vincent60030 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Done it is contained in issue 26226 in the London Gazette as well. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! All issues resolved! Yay! Vincent60030 (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bakerloo line (Done)

"When the UERL was constituted in April 1902" - what does "constituted" mean?

Resolved

@Ritchie333: It means the UERL was formed. ;) UERL is a company operating the CCE&HR, GNP&BR, BS&WR and another one that I had forgotten where these companies were bankrupt at that time. UERL 'saved' them by continuing what is left to be done. Vincent60030 (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The route was approved in 1900." - short sentence again Done merged with the previous sentence. Vincent60030 (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The first section of the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (BS&WR)" - why have we defined "BS&WR" here, but not at the top of this section. Done fixed it. Vincent60030 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents (Done)

This section appears to be copyright violation of https://art.tfl.gov.uk/labyrinth/artwork/elephant-castle/
Huh?! That's strange. The content in the article was there years ago. When was this page ever made? If it was just recently, then Tfl would be the one who is copying. If not, then I will change the text. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a backwards copyvio - I did look for a "content from Wikipedia" attribution as I'd imagine TfL to be on the ball with these things, but maybe not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: so should I rephrase it? Vincent60030 (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it won't hurt to. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done should be fine now. :D Vincent60030 (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The station today

I would move this section to the top and retitle it "Geography", adding some of the basic geography in the lead (see above), which I think is consistent with other GAs.
Agree with the move. Also, consider the name 'Location'. Vincent60030 (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done moved with a subsection instead. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The northern building provides the most direct access to the Bakerloo line, while the southern one is linked more directly to the Northern line." - this needs a source Done - found one, hope it works Vincent60030 (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"There is a sandwich bar to the left of the entrance" - is this necessary? It may go out of date quickly
Maybe...but you do have a point there. Vincent60030 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with Ritchie333 that the poky little sandwich bar is not worth mentioning. We don't go into that level of detail for the southern building. -- Alarics (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then. I shall remove it. ;) Done Vincent60030 (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The main alteration is a modern glass-sided" - this section is unsourced

Hmm? I thought the pic supports this already? PS:See alt text Vincent60030 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in a similar style to Kennington station" - putting a picture next to another one and saying "they're similar" does look a bit like original research to me, have you got a better source? The same issue applies to the next sentence.
@Ritchie333: I'm afraid I need assistance on this as I already said I don't have access to good book sources though. =p Hope this won't affect too much. I might consider adding a picture from Kennington station. Btw have you seen my other comments? ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It was rebuilt at the start of the 21st century and reopened on 12 December 2003" - the date doesn't appear to be in the source
Actually, I treat the station building (the pic in the infobox as a ref). Otherwise, I can't find any source for now. See my current Internet issue on my talk page. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done found one, hope it works. Vincent60030 (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What makes www.geofftech.co.uk/tube/facts.html a reliable source?
I've used this in several other GAs as well. You can watch Geofftech's YouTube videos (channel: Londonist Ltd) where he has tons of videos including secrets of different lines which are pretty accurate. Even DavidCane used this source too in GAs so I don't see a problem about it being not reliable. Best wishes Vincent60030 (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have used www.geofftech.co.uk/tube/facts.html in any GAs. I can't find it in any of the articles that I have created. It's a bit too much of a fan site.--DavidCane (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. But anyways, I couldn't find any other sources about steps anyway so it's a bit of a problem without using this source. Vincent60030 (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: The list of passed GANs are also the same as above. Vincent60030 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Can you figure out which page is it from this URL here? Vincent60030 (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage feature and refurbishment (Done)

"The station was refurbished in 2007." - all of it, or just the Northern line (given previous context)
Oh it includes the Bakerloo line platforms if you see sentences below it. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"it was not possible to arrange the new roundels at alternate ‘low’ and ‘high’ positions" - what does this mean?
Actually the C&SLR used to have a style of placing roundels on two halves of the walls. Some at the top half and some at the bottom half. In this case, the cables and blah blah blah have already occupied part of the top half of the platform so the new roundels all have to be placed at the lower half. See pictures of station platforms between Kennington and Morden. Vincent60030 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Services and connections (Done)

As above, I generally put basic information first (as I believe that's what a casual reader will look for as a priority), then go into the history later (which is more for the tube buffs like you and I ;-D) Done moved Vincent60030 (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"between approximately 05:37 and 00:06 northbound" - do we need to be this specific?
Resolved

You could look at some GAs like Euston, Angel and many more where in this case if we don't provide train frequencies, we specify it this way. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Approximately 05.37" seems like a contradiction in terms. 05.37 is not approximate at all, but very specific. I would leave this out altogether, since it roughly applies to the whole system, not just this station. More informative (and more consistent) would be to quote the frequencies per hour as we already do here for the Northern line. -- Alarics (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alarics: actually I can't possibly get the EXACT train frequencies for the Bakerloo line if you check Clive's page where it mentions the range of the frequencies. Also, in this case approximately means it could be 05:36 or 05:38 and so on. Vincent60030 (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone with "approximately 5:30am to midnight", which I think it a good balance. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the TfL website, it is possible to find the first and last trains in each direction from a station. For example, have a look at refs [35] and [36] in Highgate tube station. YOu will also be able to see roughly what the interval between trains is, though, as this varies throughout the day, this does not need to be too specific.--DavidCane (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidCane: Yep, I knew that. ;) Btw, do you have the book Walworth Through Time (see article)? If you do, can you help me check which page is it? Vincent60030 (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are lot of London bus routes serving the station - is there any way we can identify major routes and rewrite this to say something like "The station is served by many bus routes, including...."
Resolved

I have no idea which are the major bus routes though. XD Vincent60030 (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a local resident who uses several of them from time to time, I would be hard put to it to say that any of the routes are more "major" than others. -- Alarics (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we'll leave it as is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bakerloo line extension to southeast London (Done)

"During 2005–06, a Bakerloo extension which had three route options were proposed." - the source following this seems to be a dead link

Resolved

I've found an archived version of it so I've rescued it. (Phew!) :) Vincent60030 (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: So, is this source ok? :) Vincent60030 (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What makes www.londonreconnections.com/ a reliable source?
Resolved

I've used this in several articles as well. It is of a similar background like Clive's page (CULG). (See above) Vincent60030 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arnos Grove tube station also passed GA with this. Vincent60030 (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay (btw, you may have noticed "What makes 'x' a reliable source?" is a question I frequently ask, and supplying a convincing reason that it is is fine ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I've noticed haha. Vincent60030 (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In July 2011, Network Rail recommended an extension of the Bakerloo line from Elephant & Castle to Lewisham, where it would take over the line to Hayes." - I can see the Network Rail report mentions " the core Elephant & Castle to London St Pancras International route" on page 71, but is that what we're talking about here?

Resolved

~~I don't get what you mean here.~~ Oh no, that is about National rail route. I can't check the PDF because of Internet issues on the laptop as mentioned. ~~Otherwise, if I've checked that there is no mention about the Bakerloo extension, I'll remove the content. ;)~~ Checked already, no issues. Yay! Vincent60030 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the route to St Pancras is the Thameslink service from Elephant & Castle National Rail station, nothing to do with the Underground. -- Alarics (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Station upgrade (Done)

"to create thousands of new homes" - the source specifically says 6,000 new homes, would that be worth adding?
Well, I think that is too specific though. =p Vincent60030 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images (Done)

In my opinion, File:Elephant and Castle Bakerloo Line station.jpg looks a more suitable image for the infobox, showing more of the classic early 20th century architecture rather than just a bland glass face. What do you think? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: The image mentioned actually supports the sentences in the station building section. So, I don't think it is possible to change it. Even if you change it to another beautiful picture, the current infobox pic supports the 2003 rebuilding of that building. Vincent60030 (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: So, do you think I should change the image? Vincent60030 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it looks nicer. I don't think it's a deal-breaker for GA, and if somebody else doesn't like it as much, we can always revert. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Changed to an elephant & castle statue. :D Vincent60030 (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

I've gone through the whole article now. Next I'll read the comments that you've already addressed and see how to proceed from there. I think the main stumbling block at the moment is some of the verification - if I had sources to hand, I would help out, but I don't, so short of DavidCane or Redrose64 lending a hand to consult their personal libraries, we could be in a bit of a pickle. :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second half of the "Station building" section is unsourced Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Ritchie333: Hmm? I'm confused now. Aren't thoses sources?~~ Thanks for putting tags, now it makes it unambiguous for me to notice. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through all the replies and I think we're not too far off closing the review, so I'll put it on hold. I've added tags to the few remaining areas that I think need attention, and once those are resolved I believe the article will meet the GA criteria and the review can pass. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I've resolved all reference issues. Can you do a final check on it? ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a citation error on the "Walworth Through Time" book, which I've fixed. I enjoy ".... Through Time" books, they're a fascinating read, so that's a good source to use. I think that's it, so I'll pass the review now - well done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the effort! Credits to DavidCane, Redrose64, Alarics and Dubmill as well. Gonna nominate for DYK next. ;) Oh and thanks for the recommendation (...Through Time) :D Vincent60030 (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]