Talk:Broad Street railway station (England)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Why isn't this at Broad Street station (London) like all the other main stations, i.e. without "railway" in the title?
    I think the best response to that comes from WT:UKRAIL by Robevans123 : "I suspect that many of us who worry a bit about getting names right have just lost the will to live as far as this particular debate goes. I'm off to throw myself onto the West Anglia Main Line/West Anglia Mainline/West Anglia main line/f**k it - A14..." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it was exclusively railway - there was no underground, light rail, or other mode of transport. See WP:NCUKSTATIONS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead could use a bit more, the opening paragraph is, at two sentences, measly.
    I've beefed it up a little bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "City of London" is overlinked in the lead.
    Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "London Trams" - no need for the big T.
    Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liverpool Street is a dab.
    Unlinked (the street is non-notable, or at least is only known about in context of the station) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Liverpool Street station was immediately to the east.[1] It was near..." merge, and reference the final part.
    All fixed. This section is a bit sorry looking compared to some of the other station articles I've worked on simply because as a closed station there's no contemporary information about how runs it, what services and platforms are available etc. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "London and Birmingham Railway" no ampersand in its proper title.
    Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • City of London (linked twice in the lead) is linked again in Location and then again in History...
    Fixed (writing articles back to front again) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " NLR fund the new extension.[2] The extension of the NLR " repetitive.
    Copyedited
  • "... of 22 July 1861. [3]" remove space.
    Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a two-mile" convert to km.
    Okay, though "two" looks better than "2" in this context Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chalk Farm, Kew, Birmingham New Street are piped to redirects.
    That's how {{rws}} works Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watford is piped to a redirect which links to a dab!
    There's a bit of a convoluted history behind this - the source just says "Watford", which could mean Watford High Street or Watford Junction, but a quick look around suggests that all suburban services to Watford have stopped at both stations, so it just means "Watford" generally. I've changed it to a straight link to Watford.
    The ultimate destination will have always been Watford Junction. Watford High Street was never used as a terminal station; if the context is electric trains from Broad Street to Watford, then the trains will have called at Watford High Street, but steam trains could bypass that by taking the (non-electrified) direct route from Bushey. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The context here is "Services to Watford began on 1 September 1866", so not electric. As I said above, the source I used, plus this one and this one just say "Watford" without qualifying it with any station, which would suggest it's not important for this article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the North London Line (City Branch) diagram, we have a Main Line, we have a redirect piped to Liverpool St, and a self-referencing link o this article.
    The caps is because Great Eastern Main Line is its current title, the redirect is (again) because of {{rws}}, the self-referencing link is because the template is re-used elsewhere such as North London Line City Branch, so the link is required in that context. I refer the honourable gentlemen to the first comment in this review, in that everybody has thrown their hands up in despair at any consistency between articles and given up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the links on the "reuse" diagram as well.
    As above.
  • "a loss in passengers " a reduction?
    Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " an enemy Zeppelin attack" either name the enemy or remove the "enemy" altogether.
    Copyedited Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richmond isn't linked first time, and is linked to different targets, inluding a redirect.
    Cleaned up Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Big four grouping." is piped to a redirect, but worse, it should be Big Four.
  • And it's unreferenced.
    ......and even worse than that, it's factually incorrect - the LMSR took over the NLR years before the Big Four grouping. Fixed. (On a side note, if you ever look at detailed railway history books, you'll find they jump straight into the acronyms without defining them, on the assumption that once you've read up on the subject enough, they'll get burned into your memory. A bit like WP shortcuts, really) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the LMS cannot have taken anything over before Grouping, since it did not exist. The NLR also remained independent until Grouping. What happened was that in 1909 the NLR handed over the working of its trains to the LNWR; later, at the start of 1923, the Grouping occurred, under which the LNWR amalgamated with several other railways to create the LMS. The newly-created LMS then absorbed the NLR instantly; so for a split second the independent NLR was worked by the LMS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Broad Street was badly damaged during World War II. The former GNR services from Broad Street were stopped..." should be switched round.
    Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Looking into the station in 1983." fragment, no full stop needed.
    Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could link British Rail.
    Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the service to Richmond was" this time you link Richmond to Richmond and not Richmond station...
    See above Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Hoxton Overground Station" is piped to a redirect, but not only that I doubt it was ever formally capitalised in such a proper fashion.
    I suspect this was added at a time closer to the redevelopment of the East London Line (Underground) into an overground service, and whoever put it in thought the qualification was appropriate. It isn't now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All stations in the Accidents and incidents section are overlinked.
    Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the last time you mentioned Poplar, it was just Poplar, not " Poplar (East India Road) ".
    I think it should say "Poplar" - the disambiguation is because there is a completely different DLR station with the same name that opened after Broad Street closed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rail Enthusiast" is actually Rail, not RAIL.
    Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I have for this run through. On hold. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: All addressed, I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked this before, and nobody has answered. What is wrong with piping to a redirect? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Ritchie333, I appreciate your responses and modifications, so I'll promote. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - though can you answer Redrose's question though, because as I've said, some templates automatically generate a pipe to a redirect by design, for consistency. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The use of such templates is purely optional, and in my opinion, detremental when results are either inconsistent or misguided. I've seen it before with ship class templates. Pages take longer to load when subjecting to such "helpful" templates and given they don't actually aid the reader at all, I see no benefit at all in using them. They also work against a number of the editing tools which are helpful to discover issues (such as overlinking), so if it was me, I'd ditch these basically pointless inline templates altogether, especially when they don't actually link to the correct page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To take one example mentioned above, it takes negligible extra time to load Birmingham New Street than to load Birmingham New Street. Any perceived difference will be down to server load, network traffic or browser caching. The same page is reached both times, so I don't see how you can claim "they don't actually link to the correct page" either. More at WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broad_Street_railway_station_(England)/GA1&oldid=820006905"