Talk:Midland Main Line upgrade/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

Nominator: JuniperChill (talk · contribs) 12:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 10:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Lots of sentences need improvement. Extended content There were a number of proposals to electrify the line over many years but the 2012 proposal and announcement by the UK government was that it would include electrification of the railway line between Bedford, Wellingborough, Corby, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. This sentence is a bit long and could be split up: The current programme of upgrades began in 2012, although electrification was proposed a number of times previously. The current programme includes electrification of the railway line between Bedford, Wellingborough, Corby, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. Done This was also part of a rolling programme of railway electrification projects. Does this need to be its own sentence? Removed To enable all the benefits of using electric traction, the line south of Bedford into London St Pancras is also being progressively upgraded including boosting the power supply Better wording/punctuation needed here Reworded Parts of the line have been classed as congested infrastructure hence another reason for the upgrade. The sections underway as of June 2024 are the electrification from Kettering to South Wigston as well as the upgrading of the overhead line equipment (OLE) south of Bedford to allow 125 mph (200 km/h) running. These two sections are due to finish construction in summer 2024 and late 2025 respectively. Needs update - Kettering to South Wigston has been energised. Additionally this paragraph could be reworded Reworded The section of the line at the southern end between London St Pancras and Bedford was electrified with overhead line in the early 1980s and finished in 1983. This section is mainly a commuter route and is often called the Bedpan line. Could bedpan line be incorporated more naturally here? The section at the southern end of the line between London St Pancras and Bedford, nicknamed the Bedpan line, was electrified with overhead line in the early 1980s and completed in 1983. or alternatively the Bedpan line could be omitted entirely. Done Then privatisation and a change in government intervened. This sentence is a bit awkward Reworded In July 2009 the Labour government published a document and said it was looking at electrification of the Midland Main Line but no funds had been committed. Needs better punctiation Added commas Ryan Scott the Network Rail Programme Engineering Manager was quoted as saying that the minimum number of platforms at Sheffield station – (Sheffield Midland) would be wired to avoid having unnecessary cost added when the station was later remodeled. The whole MML scheme also overlapped with the Electric Spine project. This is weird quotation style. A better style might be Network Rail Programme Engineering Manager, Ryan Scott, commented that the minimum number of platforms at Sheffield Midland would be wired, to avoid unnecessary cost added when the station was later remodeled. I actually did a little reword of what you suggested since Sheffield Midland was the former name and said 'to avoid adding unnecessary In June 2015, the then Secretary of State for Transport Patrick McLoughlin informed Parliament the electrification project was being paused, resulting in criticism from local MPs. is worded weirdly - "the then" could be removed for the same effect On 27 July 2017 a further briefing paper was issued and the Midland Main Line had a section of its own. Needs some commas Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	LEAD: Article has all elements for the lead, provides an accessible overview and adequately describes what the project is, and its current phases. Article also appropriately includes contextual links early on, and lead is appropriately sized. LAYOUT: Sections are appropriately ordered, no applicable specialised order. Images are appropriately sized. Article also uses emdash or endash where appropriate WORDS TO WATCH: None used in the article. FICTION: N/A LISTS: Lists used thrice in article - once to list phases of the project, once as timeline, and once in further reading. Appropriate usage here. However, Article does not have MOS:BOLDLEAD where it would be fairly easy to include, such as: The Midland Main Line upgrade is a programme to upgrade the Midland Main Line, a major railway line in the United Kingdom. This might, however, violate MOS:REDUNDANT.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Following spot-check of 10/70 sources, sources are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All claims are cited inline
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Using the copyvio tool, result of 15.3%. Of which is just phrases and important info
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses main aspects of the topic
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article occasionally goes into unnecessary detail Following further inspection, article goes into apporpriate amount of detail considering the article subject
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article does not express any specific point of view
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring on this page
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged appropriately with copyright status, OGL and CC4.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image 1 may need replacing as it is from 2012 and it's for "by 2019" - which was 5 years ago. Is a more recent DfT image available? In other regards, Both images are relevant to the topic and placed in each section appropriately.
	7. Overall assessment.

Discussion

• Excited to get started! Looks like an interesting topic DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Off the bat, I don't see anything that would cause a quickfail so I'll get right into it DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding MOS:BOLDLEAD, the article title is descriptive, just like the Great Western Main Line upgrade (initially titled 21st century modernisation of the Great Western Main Line) and A9 dualling project. Other names include Midland Main Line railway upgrade (former title), Midland Main Line electrification, MML electrification, etc. It was however the case before [1]. So yes I would say it violates WP:REDUNDANT.

  And the files: I have to remember that much of the electrification scheme was either cancelled (Cardiff to Swansea and Windermere), deferred (Oxford to Didcot/Bristol to Chippenham). From my understanding, the red lines were supposed to be complete by 2019. JuniperChill (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  I see DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Since I have been editing for a while, I will take a pause/break for today. I did the first part of the GA nomination. I should be able to do this tomorrow. JuniperChill (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good so far, I’ll take another look at it when you finish up DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Done 1a JuniperChill (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  I’ll take a look at it DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  The lead section does not currently comply with MOS:LEADCITE. 86.5.112.204 (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I looked into that too, but MOS:LEADCITE is pretty vague about whether or not to have citations in the lead.

• The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Since that is an MOS, only a few are applicable to the GA criteria. MOS:LEADCITE is not one of them. If this was an FAC, then that would apply (since FAs have to comply with almost all the MOS). See also: WP:GANOTJuniperChill (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

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.