Talk:Victoria line/GA2

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vincent60030 (talk · contribs) 12:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Just starting out here; will be busy due to school but first screenthrough looks fine. Nice to "work with you" again =D @Ritchie333:

I use the Victoria Line a lot, it's faster than other lines for reasons described in the article, and it's one of the few lines I have travelled end-to-end. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

That makes me crave for riding the Victoria line even more huhuhu we don’t have that many train lines here...most are cars. But South London needs way more tube stuff which the gov cant provide right now sadly. What a waste though for the Victoria line. Cant do anything but to accept that it has reached its capacity and the frequency is damn good! VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 14:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead

*"all trains carry drivers..." sounds controversial...might want a ref there

You don't need references in the lead (see WP:LEADCITE) - in this case, the section "Service and rolling stock" explains why there are drivers on the line despite ATO, cited to this reference Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• "intensively used" as well

Same thing - here cited to this TFL report Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done alright will cancel

• might be worthy to add that the Victoria line has no opening ceremonies at the start compared to other lines. and about the queen being the first to ride the tube

I've dropped in a small tidbit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• hmm i suppose mention just one more bit: The famous 2009 tube stock which replaced the 1967 tube stock

I'm gonna assume the books which is beyond my reach are all ok haha

Unfortunately, most of the good sources for train / tube articles can only be found at your local library, or specialist shops such as Foyles, the London Transport Museum and Ian Allen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not gonna fly more than 10000 miles for that XD VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

History

 Done complete VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Planning

• I've come across 3 brackets already. Think might be useful for footnotes here

I think just a bit of copyediting should sort that out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Walthamstow to Victoria

• "The economic boom of the mid-to-late 1950s had faded, and the Government had hoped that building the Victoria line would help reduce unemployment in London." what do you really mean here though?

Copyedited. Basically constructing new tube lines requires somebody to do it, hence the creation of jobs, which stops in employment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• (This was probably because the Kentish Town-to-Barking service was proposed for closure under the Beeching cuts.) footnote for sure

Done; this also removes the "this was probably because" which sounds a bit too much like original research. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• "An interchange opened there on 14 December 1981..." under post opening but is it possible to separate like this?

Moved into "post opening" and copyedited. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I cant access a lot of resources again due to subscription for archives needed :( VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

If you're unsure something is in a subscription source, I can look at my archives and have a look. Most of the citations to The Times come from the Gale News Vault, which is generally available to anyone in Britain with a library card. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

yes please, I’m from malaysia haha VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 14:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Victoria to Brixton

• "...since 1926" well a little note to add would be to mention the Northern line extension

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

post opening

• optional: add a wikilink for retardant. the only available retardant articles are about fire or flame retardant

I've copyedited this instead - I don't think "retardant" is a particularly good word to use. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• "...but was delayed owing to strike action." not cited

D'uuuh, forgot to add the ref, there we go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What's d'uuuh though? VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It means "silly me, I made a mistake". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I've just learnt a new slang hehe VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Design

 Done settled VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• confusing for non-tube geeks: Pimlico and Blackhorse road were not built as interchange stations but in the end in the history section the interchange is provided later

I'm not sure what exactly is "confusing"; the history section explains that Blackhorse Road was built standalone but then integrated with the mainline later, and the list of stations backs this up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In some cases this was achieved by placing the Victoria line platforms on either side of the existing station..." i think either side of existing platforms would be better

I think the word "platform" has been mentioned too many times here; I've gone with "existing arrangement" and copyedited a little. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• "These were in turn replaced in 2009 by replicas of the original design." no reference

Dang it, must have missed this one. Since this source from 2011 talks about the tiles but makes no reference to the 2009 replacements, I conclude it's not of vital importance - so removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Service and rolling stock

 Done settled VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 10:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "... ​39 1⁄2 eight-car trains of 1967 Tube Stock trains" is intriguing...any sources for the four-car train usage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent60030 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This does not explain this: "Replacement of the 1967 rolling stock began in July 2009 as part of Transport for London's 5-year £10 billion redevelopment project." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent60030 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  Added an additional source, and trimmed to what can't be verified by either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Vincent60030:: there are two reasons for the thing about "​39 1⁄2 eight-car trains". First, 1967 stock was not just used on the Victoria line, but also on the Central line (on the Woodford-Hainault shuttle, which at that time used short trains - three or four cars each); secondly, because of maintenance provision. The Victoria services were always intended to be run with eight-car trains, but the 1967 stock trains were designed in such a way that they could be split into two four-car units, each unit having a cab at both ends. In this way, not only could a four-car unit be used by itself on the Central line; but should a fault develop in one part of an eight-car train, half of the train could be taken out of service and replaced by a spare unit. So, "​39 1⁄2 eight-car trains" may be read as "​79 four-car units". Supplementary to this, the normal maintenance schedule required each car to undergo certain checks at various intervals, and so at any one time, some of the fleet would necessarily be unavailable for service. Calculations showed that a maintenance provision of 15% was desirable, so with the full Victoria service being covered by 34 trains (68 units), and another four-car unit being required for the Woodford-Hainault shuttle, a further 10 four-car units would cover all maintenance. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  • also doesnt cover this statement: "The original signalling has now been replaced with a more modern ATO system from Westinghouse Rail Systems..."

Got it Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• a wild "LUL" appeared

I put that in for the lulz (actually, it's because I forgot not everyone knows what London Underground Limited do). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In normal service all trains run from Brixton to Seven Sisters, with roughly three out of five continuing to Walthamstow Central." journey planner not showing anything like it used to show

This is probably out of date. I don't think it's important to say how many trains stop at Seven Sisters and how many go on to Walthamstow Central, so I've simplified it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Think I’ll add the CULG website as a ref here since it is more relevant as it was updated a year ago. VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 15:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Facilities

 Done settled VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 06:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

step-free access

• "Step-free routes are available between the Victoria and other lines at most interchange stations." seems a bit out of place hmm

I moved this earlier in the section, to explain context. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The lack of a third escalator linking station entrances to platforms can cause severe congestion at peak times" source still does not support this

Ventilation

This section needs some reorganization

What exactly? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of shafts mentioned. So I’m thinking of arranging it in chronology of events instead of writing the individual shafts in one paragraph. VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 15:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Around 50 ventilation shafts were created during the construction phase of the line." deadlink :/

Fixed, also pinpointed the exact page where this is verified (specifically : "There were several points along the Victoria Line where compressed air installations had been specified as a precautionary measure, and elsewhere it had been

used in London clay as an auxiliary means of support. With about 50 shafts ....") 15:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Midpoint tunnel ventilation shafts remain between each station. Special "local arrangements" are in place should it be necessary to evacuate passengers from a Victoria line train out of Netherton Road emergency escape shaft." deadlink (1)

Waybacked Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Planning permission for the shaft at Ferry Lane was granted on 11 January 1968." any updates on this? also looking out of place here

I'm confused as to the issue here - the shaft was approved during the construction (Ferry Lane is near Tottenham Hale station), so it would have been completed along with the rest of the Walthamstow Central - Highbury & Islington build later that year. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking if it could be expanded just a teeny wheeny bit but optional. VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 15:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah right. Try that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• "tranche" word sounds complicated

I've removed it - I don't think it's necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Future

• "At most stations there is a concrete staircase between the up and down escalators; the space it occupies provides potential for an additional escalator to be installed, as was done at Brixton (in 2004) and Vauxhall (in 2006)." not cited by the source

I don't believe this is the case from personal memory - Kings Cross St Pancras has two escalators, Brixton has three. Anyway, I've removed at as not being vitally important - the important thing is that there aren't enough escalators at peak times. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The plans stalled because Network Rail owns the necessary land and needs it for its own expansion projects." deadlink source

I'll have a look around, but the other source does not verify explicitly that the Northumberland Park connection stalled because of Network Rail, though there are plenty of sources saying Network Rail own the land. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Crossrail 2, also known as the Chelsea-Hackney line, is a planned but not funded project to build an additional route across central London between Victoria and King's Cross St. Pancras tube station." looks like original research from someone else. one bit is wrong too

This source is about Crossrail 2 and it says "Crossrail 2 would make rail travel quicker and easier for passengers ... to significantly reduce overcrowding on the Victoria, Northern and Piccadilly lines". I've added that Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"...planned but not funded..." how is this in the ref though? VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 10:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The Mayor of London's 2020 Vision, published in 2013, proposed extending the Victoria line "out beyond Brixton" by 2030." cant click the map to check

I've replaced it with another source, which says "Extend Victoria Line beyond Brixton (e.g. to Streatham and south east London)". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The source does not justify it though, cuz the suggestion is actually from the respondents themselves. and of course the sentence rn is still stuck as the one mentioned in the old deadlink XD VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 10:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This source is the actual 2020 Vision, and Brixton is only mentioned once. So I've remove this as it can't be true. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Crossrail 2, also known as the Chelsea-Hackney line, is a planned but not funded project to build an additional route across central London between Victoria and King's Cross St. Pancras tube station. This would be intended to relieve congestion on the Victoria line.[98]

There have been proposals to extend the line one stop southwards from Brixton to Herne Hill. Herne Hill station would be on a large reversing loop with one platform. This would remove a critical capacity restriction by eliminating the need for trains to reverse at Brixton.[99] The Mayor of London's 2020 Vision, published in 2013, proposed extending the Victoria line "out beyond Brixton" by 2030." these paragraphs can be expanded if possible?

I've added a bit more detail. I don't want to go overboard, because these are all up-in-the-air vague plans at the moment; if they ever come to fruition, the entire section may need to be rewritten again in order to reflect reality. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• "When the Victoria line was built, budget restrictions meant that station infrastructure standards were lower than on older lines and on later extension projects.[17] Examples include narrower than usual platforms and undecorated ceilings at Walthamstow Central, Blackhorse Road and Tottenham Hale, affecting lighting levels.[92]

The line was purposefully built with less escalators than other lines as a cost saving exercise.[93] The lack of a third escalator linking station entrances to platforms can cause severe congestion at peak times. At most stations there is a concrete staircase between the up and down escalators; the space it occupies provides potential for an additional escalator to be installed, as was done at Brixton (in 2004) and Vauxhall (in 2006).[62] There have been station closures, for safety reasons, when escalators have been unserviceable.[94]" slightly off topic for the future section cuz it's not elaborated further

I've moved this to "Facilities", which seems to be more appropriate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Stations

 Done settled VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 10:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Seven Sisters is the only station on the line with more than 2 platforms. The third is used as a holding platform for trains that terminate their journeys from Brixton at Seven Sisters instead of at Walthamstow. This third platform allows access to the Northumberland Park depot." add ref here

Done. Not the greatest sources in the world, but you can verify the first sentence by visiting the station, the second by waiting for a train indefinitely, and the third by looking on a map, so it's not particularly "information challenged or likely to be challenged". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough xD I’ll let this slide *wink* It's adequate :) VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 14:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Mainline trains" I'll let you decide whether to use mainline trains or national rail services here

I'm going to stick with "Mainline trains" for simplicity. For example, consider Tottenham Hale station; as well as the Victoria line, it has mainline services run by Greater Anglia and Stansted Express, and there are different examples for different stations. Plus mainline operators have an annoying recent habit of changing names ("South West Trains" was renamed / re-appropriated as "South Western Railway" not too long ago, resulting in a whole pile of necessary changes). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Final

Ok I'm putting this on hold for now. Well done regardless =D VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Heya, Vincent60030, as far as I can tell the main outstanding issue left is getting a source for "The plans stalled because Network Rail owns the necessary land and needs it for its own expansion projects" - or did I miss anything else? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm still confirming with the lead and stuff as well as checking using checklinks. There's another source that cant justify one statement in Step-free Access, reorganizing the Ventilation subsection, and there are still another two more issues in Future section not resolved. VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 10:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, Ritchie333 I would highly recommend you to submit a DYK for this article too...how about mentioning about the opening ceremony bit? or the naming derivation? or the 50 ventilation shafts? haha VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 11:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vincent60030: Okay, I've fixed the three remaining issues one way or another. Is there anything else? If not, I'll think about a DYK for this. Unfortunately we've missed the 50th anniversary of the opening ceremony by a few weeks, but hopefully we can get it in by the end of the year before it's too late. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: You still havent fixed the permanent deadlink issue. "The plans stalled because Network Rail owns the necessary land and needs it for its own expansion projects." this isnt cited...I suggest maybe searching for the land purchase by Network Rail for its usage...and what expansion project it meant. VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 06:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Got it - the new source has on p.15 "There is potential for repurposing of the Victoria Line depot route from Tottenham Hale to Northumberland Park" and p.18 "Taking this option forward would require decisions from the Council, Network Rail and other public bodies." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! Another GA for ya =D cheers VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 12:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for a very thorough and comprehensive review, checking all the facts meticulously. I've never done a tube line GA before, so this was quite a learning experience for me too! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Anytime mate! It’s part of the job anyway. I didn’t know this is your first tube line GA hehe meanwhile I’m tryna improve the Bakerloo line extension article as well as improving and expanding the Malaysian Sungai Buloh-Kajang MRT Line article. Not easy to improve the latter and our local articles cuz we have lack of sources and authors who write about our transport network xD VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 14:53, 27 October 2018 (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.