Template:Did you know nominations/Hastings Line

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hastings Line

(

)

... that the loading gauge on the Hastings Line was restricted after a tunnel collapse, and special rolling stock had to be built?

Improved to Good Article status by Mjroots (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 22:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC).

ALT1 ... that due to lax supervision of the construction of the tunnels on the Hastings Line in the 1840s, rolling stock of a restricted loading gauge (Class 33/2 locomotive pictured) was used until 1986? Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Support a modified alt1; while I gladly give preference to the content creators, in this instance, neither hook feels worthy. As I mentioned, I prefer alt 1, but the proposal provides no indication as to the result of "lax supervision" - Floydian ^τ _¢ 10:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I will review this one. Tiny conflict of interest: three of my pictures have been used in the article! Comments to follow in due course. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(for article);

(because I have proposed some ALT hooks)

Britain's railways are one of my specialist areas of knowledge, and I know this line particularly well. I have been through the article carefully and have made some minor corrections (mostly typos). The range of sources used is good and reliable, and includes everything I would have expected in terms of books and websites. The article was promoted to GA on the date it was nominated for DYK. The pic is used in the article and has the right licence, and I would recommend using it and making this a lead hook in a set. I cannot see any factual errors, major omissions (with one exception) and other problems with the text. The single omission is a mention of today's train service (one semi-fast and one stopper per hour, plus extras as far as TW from the Tonbridge direction). Service levels at other points in the line's history are mentioned, so this should be covered. (Otherwise it may seem that "[t]he fast trains were withdrawn in January 1981, with trains now stopping at all stations" still applies.)

Regarding the hook: the factual content is fine, and I agree it's the most suitable hook fact there is in the article, but it's a case of agreeing on the best wording. I agree with Floydian that based on the sources available, we can't necessarily make the leap straight from the lax supervision to the imposition of restrictions until 1986. Here are some ALTs from me: I'm not sure that ALT2 gets away from that problem either, but I'll offer it anyway...

ALT2: ... that because the Hastings Line's tunnels were built incorrectly in the 1840s, a restricted loading gauge and special narrow-bodied trains were used until 1986?
ALT3: ... that the Hastings Line had to use special narrow-bodied rolling stock until 1986 because the loading gauge was restricted?
ALT4: ... that because the Hastings Line's loading gauge was restricted in the 19th century, special narrow-bodied rolling stock had to be used until 1986?

Perhaps we could have some discussion around the hook. Apart from that, all aspects of this DYK are fine. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hassocks5489: I like ALT 2, but it doesn't take account of the image. So let's go with:

ALT2a ... that because the Hastings Line's tunnels were built incorrectly in the 1840s, a restricted loading gauge and special narrow-bodied trains (Class 33/2 locomotive pictured) were used until 1986?

Re your comments about todays services, I'll get a copy of the current timetable and use that to add in the details (yes, it's online now, but won't be in a few months time). Mjroots (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree with hook ALT2a. Ready to go when another editor confirms they are happy with the hook. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 07:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Floydian: - are you happy to sign this off? Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! I like this alternative hook, as it is understandable to a non-railroad enthusiast such as myself. Good to go :) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)