Talk:Railway stations in Cromer/GA1

I've begun the Good Article review for this article. On a first read, it appears to be very close. One suggestion, though: I find the lead section confusing. The article title refers to the one railway station that still exists, but that station is not mentioned until near the end of the lead paragraph. I'd like to see this restructured so that the present station is described first, and then the history behind it. I think two separate paragraphs would probably be the best presentation. -Pete (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While I dislike multiple-paragraph leads, I agree and have split the lead section; there's now one "brief overview" and one "boring list of dates". — iridescent 19:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that reads much more smoothly now, good work! -Pete (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The diagram of lines should also show the (closed) link that enabled trains to go directly between Sheringham and North Walsham without the need to call at Cromer (Beach). Mjroots (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I've added it — iridescent 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article is Cromer Railway Station but the article mentions four stations. Either each should have a separate article or the title should be in the plural, with redirect pages for Cromer High railway station and Cromer Golf Links Halt railway station.Mjroots (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be resolved by simply un-bolding the names of the former stations. If the article is about the present station, it's fine to discuss the others, as a vital piece of the present station's history. It does seem a little odd that so much emphasis would be placed on the history, without a great deal of treatment of the present station. However, it may be that the station is a fairly uninteresting structure, and that its history is simply where the interesting stuff is. I've never been there, so it's difficult for me to judge. -Pete (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed them to italics, the station names don't dominate the article now. (IMHO)Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know why Cromer Beach is coming out bold in the Former stations section? No wikitext is there to do that! Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted it. Whenever an article links to itself, instead of it appearing blue and clickable, it bolds itself. Simply south (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If nobody minds, i am going to move thist to Cromer railway stations as there are (or were) multiple stations. Simply south (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not that's right. The question is this: Is it "the railway stations in the municipality of Cromer" or "the railway station named Cromer"? Which of those subtly different topics is the subject of this article? I think the answer to that question should determine whether the title should be plural or not. -Pete (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer is, it's an article about Cromer railway station. Therefore Cromer High and Golf Links Halt need their own articles, which can be linked to this one. A redirect page for Cromer Beach station is needed too. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_3#Cromer_stations_(and_discussion_page), Talk:List of closed railway stations in Britain#Maiden Lane railway station and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_7#Quick strawpoll. Railway stations in Cromer? Simply south (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be going round in circles, doesn't it? I've no objection to Simply south's suggestion to rename it in the plural. Seems the easiest way out to me. Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support "Railway stations in Cromer" as a name, and (obviously, as the one who suggested it and performed the merge) support keeping the articles merged; realistically, the disused station sections are never going to grow beyond stubs, and they're more useful as sections of a general article on how railway provision in the town has changed over time. — iridescent 17:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, there's a reasonable case to be made either way. If I might suggest, in the interest of stability, the lead should be rewritten again to reflect whatever is chosen as strongly as possible. That way future editors will be less likely to revisit this decision ad infinitum. I'd be happy to do this myself, but I'll wait to be 100% sure that the plural name is what you all want to do. -Pete (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Railway stations in Cromer? I thought the convention was (Name of station) railway station. Pluralising station then describes the article's coverage adequately. Mjroots (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mjroots, seems to me that convention wouldn't quite apply if it's pluralized: "Cromer" is not a name of multiple railway stations. I think "Railway stations in Cromer" more clearly expresses that "Cromer" is being used to name the town, rather than the station. -Pete (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Pete here; "Cromer railway stations" implies three railway stations called "Cromer", rather than three railway stations within Cromer, none of which were called "Cromer" until after the services were centralised onto the single station. See the whatever the much-renamed London railway station happens to redirect to today (currently London station group) for a larger-scale example of the same problem. — iridescent 17:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to a point of Pete's I've just noticed above, the reason there's more emphasis on the defunct Cromer High station than the existing station, is that the current station is just a strip of concrete at which trains periodically stop (see the photo in the infobox), and even in its Cromer Beach heyday was the terminus of fairly minor lines from Melton Constable and Mundesley, whereas Cromer High was the terminus of Great Eastern trains from London dating back to Cromer's 19th century brief spell as a major holiday resort, and consequently had much more significant buildings & facilities; services were centralised on the Beach station because the High station was inconveniently sited, not because Beach was a better station. I tried to make that clear in the article. — iridescent 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if its any help, but I've been involved with two articles that deal with multiple stations: Maiden Lane railway stations and Minor halts on the Talyllyn Railway. The first deals with two separate but nearby stations with the same name, the second deals with related halts that aren't significant enough (IMO) to have individual articles. – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So, as I see it, there are three possibilities:

1. Keep the name as-is, Cromer railway station. Rework the lead a (tiny) little bit to make it clear that it's about the one station, and the others are treated only as part of the history and context for that station.
2. Rename to Railway stations in Cromer. Rework the lead to give fairly equal treatment to all the stations, mentioning secondarily that Cromer and Roughton Road are the remaining stations.
3. Rename to Cromer railway stations. Rework lead as in #2. (I think this one has been ruled out, both Iridescent and I oppose it.)

So, I'd say we need to make a decision between #1 and #2, and adjust the article accordingly. Having this decision "in limbo" would, I think, prevent approval of GA status, as it's hard to call the article "stable" with this question hanging over it.

Finally, in response to Iridescent: your statement above is good. I think it would help the article to include something along those lines in the lead. You're right, the article does say all that, but it would have been much clearer to me if it had been expressed in the lead; that would have made the rest of the article make more sense, which I think is the primary function of a lead section. -Pete (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think i am going to actually support option 2. A possible option 4 would be Cromer's railway stations but i am probably opening a can of worms, more likely emptying them out!! Simply south (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support #2 as well, although I wouldn't oppose #1. I'm reluctant to add anything more that's not absolutely necessary to the (already bloated) lead section. On a second read-through, the Cromer High section isn't actually disproportionately long; only a single paragraph is about the station itself, the remainder is about the reasons for its closure and an explanation of the reorganisation of the routes following closure. I've split this section off into a subsection of its own to avoid the imbalance in the sections. — iridescent 01:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that #2 is getting the most support, though I agree that #1 is also acceptable. Do you guys agree that the lead should be rewritten with different emphasis, if we change the name? I'd be happy to take a crack at that if nobody else wants to; if so, I'll just post it here on the talk page first for discussion.

On the length of the lead, I don't think the present lead is bloated; WP:LEAD puts much more emphasis on the qualitative aspects of the lead than its length, stating that a lead "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points…" It seems to me that the distinguishing characteristics of the different stations, or the historical context of why some still exist while others were abandoned, is one of the most important points. As for length, the guideline only states that the lead shouldn't exceed four paragraphs.

That said, if you want to keep the lead short, let me suggest a different approach: with the title Railway stations in Cromer, it may not be essential to name every individual station. Perhaps an overview of the history could replace that, and those with a specific interest in the exact station names could read further into the article. -Pete (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restructured the lead to be more balanced between the four stations; I think this ought to be stable enough to work with any of the four title options. — iridescent 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better. Question:- is it really necessary to name the supermarket that built on the goods yard at Cromer Beach? Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the lead's better too. I renamed the article as discussed, and did a bunch of redirect/wikilink tidying. -05:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteforsyth (talk • contribs)

In reply to Mjroots, probably not althugh the current land use should stil be named. I'll change this slightly. It could be mentioned in the town article though. Simply south (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

Anybody working on the bolding in the lead paragraph, please take a close look at Wikipedia:LEAD#Bold title. My understanding is that an article like this should have no bolding in its lead section; the article title is not the "natural name" of anything. -Pete (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed which is why I took it out, although I put the multiple station names in italics for clarity - someone keeps reverting this — iridescent 20:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That was me, I only did it once. Thought I had explained (maybe did it in an edit summary?) I looked through WP:MOS for any indication that a railway station's name should be italicized, didn't find any. If clarity is needed (and I don't really think that's a problem), I think the appropriate way to do that is with quotation marks, not italics. Might need to pore through MOS a little more. -Pete (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just reworded the lead further by showing there were three and now there are two including a new one in the 1980s. I wonder if something should be done about Roughton Road...? Simply south (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reworked trying to accommodate all this, hopefully we're getting closer. On italics, the "words as words" thing seems to apply where discussing the change of name from Cromer Beach to Cromer, but not elsewhere. In other words, where talking about the station, no italics; where talking about the name, italicize. -Pete (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Roughton Road

This is a bit of a stub, do you think this should be merged in here or left separately? Simply south (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Article looks fine to me, could have a category added - railway stations opened in 1985. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to merging it in; as a open, reasonably heavily used station I think it ought to have its own article — iridescent 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that they should be kept separate. But, see following section… -Pete (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd probably be in favour of merging Roughton Road with this article, and redirecting to here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another merge/split proposal

I hate to keep proposing structural changes, but it occurs to me we haven't considered this, and it may be the most reasonable structure:

• One article for Cromer station (presently open)
• One article for Roughton Road station (presently open)
• One article for Former railway stations of Cromer, describing the overall history.
• Additionally, some of the history could be merged into Cromer, if it isn't already there.

Among other things, this makes it possible to avoid having an invobox in an article section. I'm not sure whether that violates a guideline or not, but I find it unsightly and confusing.

Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

...and make this a disambiguation page? Simply south (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would make most sense. -Pete (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There I was, about to ask when there was actually going to be an opportunity to support/oppose the nomination. :/ Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the long process. This is my first GA Review, and I know it's taking way longer than most. That said, I think all the issues we've been discussing are important ones. It seems to me that this article had not had the benefit of the kind of collaboration/deliberation that is going on now, before its nomination. Looking back, I think the only alternative I can see to this extensive process would have been to fail the article early on, and suggest that these issues be addressed before renomination. Right now, I see an article that is undergoing significant improvement, and approaching GA quality. I'm happy to continue that process, but I do not believe the article has yet attained that level. If you think it would be appropriate, I'd be happy to request a second opinion from a more experienced GA reviewer. -Pete (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, with regards to support/oppose: GA status is determined by a single editor (in this case me, unless I should pass it along to another reviewer.) You're probably thinking of FA status, which is determined by a consensus of editors. -Pete (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want a suggestion for an independent observer, I'd suggest Malleus Fatuarum, who's one of the best GA reviewers around; while he was a minor part of the discussion around the original merge, AFAIK he hasn't actually edited the article at all so there's no COI there, but he's familiar with the arguments for and against merging, and being in Lancashire he's far enough removed not to have any particular opinions on the place, but near enough to understand any UK-specific terminology. — iridescent 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on this proposed structure. I agree that not having an infobox in the top right corner does at first sight look a little odd. But I am persuaded that in this case it's a reasonable decision to have made. If this article becomes a disambiguation page, then the history of Cromer's railways stations will be lost, to be replaced by a couple of stubs and some overly detailed information in the Cromer article's Transport section. Just my two cents worth. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really reflect what I was proposing, but it seems consensus is developing around the present structure, which is fine by me. -Pete (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

2nd opinion

Pete asked me to take a look at this article and to give a 2nd opinion on it. As Iridiscent said, I was in favour of the merger of what would otherwise have been three stubs into this one article, so the overall structure looks fine to me. The deciusion I think is vindicated by the fact the this is still a pretty short article. Still, that's not an impediment to a GA listing so long as it's reasonably complete, which I'm inclined to believe that it probably is. After reviewing the article with the GA criteria in mind I do have a few specific points:

• The lead looks like a reasonable summary of the article now. My only comment would be that I'd prefer to see the positions of the infobox and the map switched. My logic is that the infobox, as an overview of some important information is more naturally placed there, whereas the map, showing the positions of the various stations would be better placed in the section where those stations are being discussed. But on the other hand, there's no MoS rule that says that infoboxes can't appear wherever you like.

• In regard to this, i disagree as there is more than one current station in Cromer, although the second one has its own infobox and article. I think it would look strange and seem to suggest that there is only one active station in Cromer. This whole article is about all railway station in Cromer, not just about the current one anymore. Simply south (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I can see the reasoning there, and you've persuaded to change my mind on this point. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the language reads a litte bit awkwardly to me, for instance "Following a decline in traffic due to Cromer's loss of popularity as a holiday destination after World War II ...". A decline implies that there may have been more than one, as opposed to "the decline", and I'm not at all sure about "loss of popularity", but there's nothing that can't be very easily fixed. So no show stoppers there.

• "... it was poorly situated on the edge of the town ..". In what sense was the situation poor? Was it inconvenient to get to and from?

• "The new station is about 200 metres from the site of the former Cromer High station". The guidelines say that there should be a conversion to imperial units. I've just noticed as well that the Roughton Road article says it's 200 yards away, not 200 metres.

• "... although derelict, the former station approach road is also still present". I'm not sure what it means for a road to be "derelict".
  • I'm not sure either, but it's what the cited source says: "derelict and overgrown." I added "overgrown," so hopefully the sentence now conveys the meaning of the source more fully. -Pete (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the body of the article starts "Because the M&GNJR ...". I know that the abbreviation has been introduced in the lead, but I think that full names should be given again on their first use in the body of the article. I think the best way to think of the lead is as an independent article, so whatever's said there needs to be repeated in the body of the article.

• The lead describes Cromer Beach as "rudimentary", but the article describes it has having a large half-timbered station building with a bar and a large goods yard. In what sense was it rudimentary?

Fixed - I take full blame for that. It wasn't rudimentary when it opened, but was scaled-down and the building abandoned later on. — iridescent 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Citation #10 has no access date.
  • Fixed. Simply south (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• "... as renamed "Cromer" on the closure of Cromer High station '(see below)". I don't think that any assumptions should be made about how people are viewing this page, or how it might end up being laid out. Some "readers" may, for instance, be listening to the page.

• "... the station was built in open fields some distance from the town itself." Some distance is a bit vague. Is it possible to put a number on that?
  • I checked the Catford source, but it doesn't have more detail. Possible the Adderson source does, but it's not online, so I'm not able to check. At any rate, this was the one remaining issue raised by Malleus Fataurum, and I don't believe it should prevent GA status on its own; while a specific number would help the article, its absence does not hurt it. I rephrased the sentence in such a way that it does not sound so vague (and was inadvertently not logged in when I did so). -Pete (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• "There is generally an hourly service to Sheringham (8 minutes) and to Norwich (55 minutes)." Is it possible to be a little more specific? During the day? Between what times? Weekends as well? Are there extra services during peak times, given that it was earlier claimed that Cromer had become a commuter suburb of Norwich?

• "In 1997 a single daily through train to and from London Liverpool Street to Sheringham via Cromer was introduced; it was not heavily used and the service was consequently discontinued." The one timetable hereappears to show that there are 14 trains a day from Liverpool Street. Am I reading the timetable wrong? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - buried in the small print is "change at Norwich". — iridescent 00:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that damned small print again. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And that's about it I think so far as I can see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the lead slightly to reflect these things (most likely) and changed in the lead on Roughton Road. Simply south (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're doing a fine job. Only a few more issues to address before I'd be happy to list this as a GA, but of the course that decision is Pete's, not mine. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum, thank you for the very detailed second opinion. I'd like to wrap this up soon, and apologize to all involved for my spotty participation. I'll be watching more closely in the hopes of passing the article ASAP. -Pete (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy that all of the issues I raised have now been addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)