Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herne Hill railway station/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:23, 13 May 2012 [1].

Herne Hill railway station[edit]

Herne Hill railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tommy20000 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article after completely rewriting and greatly expanding it over the past few months. I believe it is now comprehensive and meets the FAC criteria. Tommy20000 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I've contributed to the article over the last month mostly as a subeditor. I think it meets FA criteria, represents the best of wikipedia, and is a credit to Tommy20000. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is an interesting and very comprehensive article on a topic I know almost nothing about - great work. My comments are:

Thanks for the feedback, Nick. My comments on each point are below:Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "passengers can access it from the east via a foot tunnel entrance on Milkwood Road" - are there other ways to access the station? 'Can access' is a bit vague.
I've reworded it this so it's clear that the foot tunnel is the way into the station from the east of the viaduct, rather than the only way.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The London, Chatham and Dover Railway (LCDR) had been using tracks in inner London owned by the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR) to access London Victoria from Kent, incurring costly access fees." - when did this begin? (if only approximately)
The first para has been rewritten to provide more historical background.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why this station was "intended to impress"? I presume that it was because it was the terminus of the line.
Unfortunately not.
It's a terminating platform, but this is probably UK railway lingo so I've removed both mentions.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all terminal platforms are bay platforms: the qualifier for a bay plat is that the station consists primarily of through plats (i.e. the platforms at a station like Victoria are not bay platforms, even though 100% are terminal). I would have left the mentions, and linked to bay platform. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've put both mentions back in and linked to bay platform both times since the mentions are quite far apart in the article. Tommy20000 (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nothing came of this suggestion." - needs a citation
This is a difficult one to reference. If anything had come of it, the overground line between HH and Farringdon would have been demolished; the viaducts through the area are the same as they've been since 1869.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but you could just remove the sentence: the material is described as being only a 'suggestion' in a magazine, so it's self-evident that it didn't go ahead if this isn't acknowledged given it had no official status. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence removed.(talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second mention removed.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "will temporarily be busier from 2015" - this wording is a bit awkward. How about something like "will become busier for a period commencing in 2015"
I've gone for 'The route through the station will be busier from 2015 until 2018 as Thameslink trains serving London Bridge will be diverted via Herne Hill - an additional four trains per hour in both directions. This is due to the redevelopment of London Bridge that will temporarily close it to Bedford-Brighton trains'Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2008 RUS for South London" - I think that 'route utilisation strategy' is too arcane to be safely reduced to an acronym
ChangedTommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2012, Network Rail is not committed to grade-separation and there is no indication of when after 2020 it might take place." - needs a reference
Reworded as such: 'The 2011 route utilisation strategy, which examined options for congestion relief at Herne Hill before 2031 (see Services), did not suggest grade-separation as an option in the 2011-2031 period.' I realise referring to something that wasn't said is a bit problematic, but if Network Rail had any intention of grade-separating prior to 2031 it would have gone in that RUS.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but this still needs a reference; just cite the whole document, or the part of the document where this would have appeared. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a ref to the appropriate pages of the 2011 RUS. Tommy20000 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This would require substantial changes to the station as there is no direct access to the platforms from Milkwood Road and the current corridor for accessing the platforms does not extend any further east than the southbound platform." - ditto
The best I can do here is link to the station layout graphic from Network Rail. It isn't entirely accurate as the eastern siding is missing (since it's irrelevant to passengers), but it does show that the access route to the platforms is via the west and the extent of the corridor.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a sensible approach Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Southeastern's suburban services include the route between Victoria and Orpington via Herne Hill." - also needs a reference
Done, linked to the timetable.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and there are no current plans to construct it." - as above
Removed.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The off-peak service as of December 2011" - can this be updated?
There will be a timetable change on 19 May, so I've updated this section to reflect what it contains. It doesn't reflect the services right now, but that won't be a problem in 3 weeks.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Railway timetables in Britain tend to have two major changes per year, mid May and mid December. On some routes they may have changes in March or September of some years, but this is not a given. Showing "as of December 2011" should be sufficient qualification, given that it is a waste of effort to update the "as of" date every month that there is no change to the timetable (we do have 2000+ articles on non-Underground stations in England and Wales). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's sensible. Welcome to the world of keeping FAs up to date! Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be helpful to somehow flag that this station isn't part of the Underground network in the lead for the benefit of people who are unaware that there are also other, much less famous, rail networks in London (suggestion only) Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've included this in the lead para: "Trains to Victoria call at Brixton, where passengers can transfer to the London Underground" since Brixton is 90 seconds from HH on the train. Others may disagree however since you could do this for a lot of train stations in London; any thoughts welcome.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good approach. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My above comments are now largely addressed, and I'm sure that the remaining minor issues will be soon given that they can be easily fixed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just some random comments after reading the article. Always good to see good railway articles!

All mentions changed as suggested.Tommy20000 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 refs 'considerable congestion', the ref mentions "the flat junction at Herne Hill" as a capacity constraint. One is not == the other.
Reworded as such: "First Capital Connect and Southeastern services must cross each other's paths at the junctions, constraining capacity on both routes."Tommy20000 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 87 (Assumed Kent main line ..) actually links to a RUS, and the page number is needed.
Page added to ref.Tommy20000 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you are trying to show with the junction diagram (Early services). The included map is not very clear when thumb sized. Wouldn't a custom diagram be better? This image also seems to be misplaced at the end of a section.
I've had a stab at doing a diagram and removed the clearing house image. There are two issues with it: The lines at Herne Hill don't quite touch; and the station blob at Loughborough J is entirely dark red (i.e. open) - ideally it'd be best if the right-hand side was faded to show the platforms on the route to Denmark Hill are long gone. Any diagram pros care to have a go at fixing it?Tommy20000 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've redone the diagram and fixed the problem with the lines. The only issue is the right side of Loughborough J, but it isn't really a problem - anyone going to LJ hoping to catch a train to Denmark Hill on the basis of my diagram deserves whatever they get.Tommy20000 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've shunted the image of the upper floor down a few paras - that should resolve it.Tommy20000 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I remember something, somewhere, about linking or not link standard units, (i.e. m, mile etc) but I can't find it in the MOS at the moment. Can someone help with this? Edgepedia (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review ...

  • References should be in alphabetical order.
Done.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link titles should not be in all caps, even if they are in the original.
Fixed.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page number need for ref #7 (Symes).
The reference to Symes is for its front cover (an illustration of the station). Is there a standard way of numbering a cover? It wouldn't be page 1, presumably.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just say "cover page" ... Ealdgyth - Talk 11:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using one of the citation templates, such as {{cite book}}, use the |at= parameter instead of |page=, and specify which cover - i.e. |at=front cover --Redrose64 (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency in the various forms you're doing with the refs - some are "p.X" some are "p. X" some are "p. X." some are "P.X."...
I'm setting them all to 'p. x.'.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11 (Myatt's fields) is actually a book, not a website. The book content is hosted online by British History Online - it should be cited as the original book. Same for ref 14 and any other British History Online refs.
Will do.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 21 and 11 are the same, can be combined.
Ditto.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 3 (Herne Hill Junction Improvements) is a pdf (here) that sources "Herne Hill railway station is on a pedestrianised and commercial section of Railton Road at the centre of Herne Hill." but I don't see how this source (a map) supports the given information.
The map positions the station on a stretch of Railton Road that is either completely pedestrianised or shared usage and in very close proximity to Herne Hill's major thoroughfare and Brockwell Park. Granted the map doesn't show the area is commercial; I'll cut that word out if needed, but that's something that can be confirmed very easily using an online map that displays businesses.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is... I could not get that information from the map - I'm not a resident and the map lacked a key that would tell me what the colors meant. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The map is labelled - Railton Road, the pedestrianised area and the shared surface are marked as such; the station is indirectly labelled ('Raised square outside train station) with the railway lines visible; and the area immediately north of the park entrance is described in the third bullet point as "the centre of Herne Hill". I know this map isn't ideal, but the pedestrianisation of Railton Road was very recent and there won't be a published source that contains the same info.Tommy20000 (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "building is on the western side of the viaduct, although passengers can also access the station from the east via a foot tunnel entrance on Milkwood Road; the tunnel serves as the station's night entrance. The building houses a ticket office and newsagent, and was Grade II listed in 1998: the listing notes the station's arched doorways, Welsh slate roof and decorative brickwork" .. is sourced to this but I see no mention of a night entrance or a tunnel...
The English Heritage source is for the Grade listing, rather than the sentence before it. I've put in another link to National Rail's station layout to support the existence of the tunnel and cut the mention of the night entrance (for whatever reason, the station info on NR's website doesn't mention the ticket office closes at 19:30).Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The four platforms, not listed, were rebuilt in the 1920s and are split between two island platforms." is sourced to this source but I'm not seeing the information that the platforms were rebuilt in the 1920s nor that they aren't listed as historical things...
Both pieces of information are supported elsewhere - the English Heritage listing explicitly states 'Entrance block only' and the 1920s rebuild is referenced in the first para of the Modernisation section. For the sake of not having 3 references for a simple descriptive sentence, I've cut it back to 'The four platforms are split between two island platforms'.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given my three spot checks of three online sources showed issues with the sourcing for all three - I strongly suggest someone else do a thorough source check for this candidate article. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest auditing the whole article to make sure that there are no more issues with this sort of thing - Ealdgyth - Talk 11:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked all of the online sources to ensure they do what they say on the tin. I trimmed down the Victoria extension section (the ref for the fine detail was an enthusiast's website) and added a few more refs to the Services section. Everything else is fine, but it'd be helpful if someone else looked. Tommy20000 (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Today I've double-checked all of the online sources and compared the refs for hard-copy publications with my library notes. The text has been adjusted in a few places to better match the source and I've moved several references closer to the fact they are supporting, but the vast majority of the article checked out. A check of the article by a fresh pair of eyes would be appreciated. Tommy20000 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the start of the Description section the distance conversion looks a little overprecise and is out of step with the rest of the article that uses imperial first. Keith D (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'll just say 'close to Brockwell Park' - there's no real need for a measurement since the park is within throwing distance.Tommy20000 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support comment on prose and comprehensiveness grounds (not done a spot check) - as a train-lover, I'll read through and jot any queries below. I've started reading this a couple of times already and gotten distracted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lead - The arrival of the railways transformed Herne Hill from a wealthy suburb into an urban area. - I see a suburb as urban - the two don't appear contrastive to me.....? much better.
Reworded as such to make the contrast clearer: "The arrival of the railways transformed Herne Hill from a wealthy suburb with large residential estates into a densely populated urban area."Tommy20000 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence of lead - passengers for other central London stations on the Thameslink route would then always have to change trains at Blackfriars. - "always" is redundant here I think. Means the same if removed.
(in order to remove Blackfriars Railway Bridge, which the author considered to be a blight on the river) - not sure we need parentheses here - just a comma?
Both changes made.Tommy20000 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of the plans to achieve this goal by widening a railway viaduct through Borough Market prompted..... - had to read this twice - how about, " Criticism of the widening a railway viaduct through Borough Market to achieve this goal prompted....."
I've rewritten this section to provide more background and hopefully make it clearer - what do you think? "Network Rail began a major upgrade of the route in 2009. A key objective of the Thameslink Programme was allowing more trains to travel between central London and Brighton, which was prevented by a bottleneck between London Bridge and Blackfriars on a viaduct through the historic Borough Market. Network Rail initially suggested widening the viaduct and demolishing part of the market, but the public backlash against this plan prompted Network Rail to consider permanently routing all Thameslink trains to/from Brighton via Herne Hill, avoiding London Bridge and the market."Tommy20000 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the added context is very helpful..... now, where was I..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The route between Holborn Viaduct and Herne Hill was disrupted by 62 incidents during the war. - by....errr, what? bombs? This sentence has me curious.....
I'd assume by bombs, although the source didn't specify, referring just to 62 disruptions. There could have been V2 attacks, troop train derailments or who knows what else, so probably best to leave it as is.Tommy20000 (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wartime disruptions are not likely to have been reported in the press. This was partly because they were so common, but there were also issues of security to consider (a passenger train may have been held back to allow a vital munitions train through), and a feeling that morale should not be lowered. Instead, after the war, the railway or government press releases would have given summary figures such as this. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, that's fine then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well-developed, informative article (although a quick image check is yet missing). Two minor comments, both for "Accidents and disruption":

  • "6 November 1947", the incident is not completely clear to me. Why the emphasis on "The electric train, which was travelling to Tulse Hill, was correctly signalled"? It seems, both trains were signalled correctly, just one of them ignored it or acted incorrectly. The current wording implies somewhat, that the steam train got a wrong signal.
You're right, the 'correctly signalled' bit is redundant as the previous sentence made clear it was the steam loco that passed a signal at danger and caused the crash. I've snipped it.Tommy20000 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am feeling bad about mentioning it (it is a good story), but the didgeridoo incident appears a bit too much like trivia (just imagine, all similar events would be listed for larger stations ...). I suggest removing it. GermanJoe (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like having it in - it's a change in pace from the war and death of the section, and it's probably the one funny thing that has ever happened at HHRS. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Tommy20000 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal either way, the story is atleast interesting - have updated both points as done/explained. GermanJoe (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link Check - no broken external links, no DAB-links. GermanJoe (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image gallery - I have added an image gallery to the article to better illustrate the station's former layout; the images range from an elevated view of the station to a detailed technical schematic. I know that image galleries are generally frowned upon, but I think this one helps the reader to get their head around how the station used to look and understand the extent of the changes described in the following Modernisation section. What does everyone think? Tommy20000 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't work for me. Breaks up the article, for no extremely good reason. I'd lose it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • We should see citations at the end of all paragraphs; at the moment they're missing from last two paras of Contruction, the last para in Modernisation, and the second para in 1988 to present.
I have added references to the second last para in Construction and the last para in Modernisation; the last sentence in the last para of Construction has been cut.
The last sentence in 1988 to present - "This marked the end of rail services to the continent via Herne Hill, which had been started by the LCDR in 1863 when the line between Victoria and Dover via Herne Hill was completed." - is difficult to reference because it's summing up previously stated and referenced facts; the LCDR ran boat trains from 1863 and trains from the Channel Tunnel ran from 1994 until 2007. I haven't come across a single source that sums this up, but it would be a bit of a shame to cut what is a symbolic part of the station's history.Tommy20000 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like we still need an image check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an image check is a check of sources and licences, then I'm satisfied that all are well sourced and licenced, except for the following three, all of which have a common problem. They're photos taken in the 1900 to, say 1915 period. Photographer unknown. We assert they're in the public domain but have no evidence. It is easy to conceive of a 20-year old in 1900 taking a photo. If copyright is life + 70 years, and our photographer lived to 70 years, then they move into the PD in 1900+140-20 years = 2020. So whereas the strong probability is that they're PD, we're making an assumption and we might be wrong. I don't know how strict we consider we should be. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a dig around and had no luck finding the names of the photographers in question, so the dates of death are unknown, but, as Tag says, it's most likely the pictures are public domain.Tommy20000 (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Likely as it may be, unfortunately I don't think we can make that assumption. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The images have been removed and replaced with ones that are definitely PD - one is an 1894 Ordnance Survey map and another is a photo I took. Tommy20000 (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for taking prompt action. The new images look unproblematic so I think we can wrap this up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I have a problem - the 1894 map has been given {{PD-US}}, but that applies only to works first published in the US. This is an Ordnance Survey map, where Crown Copyright applies, so should have been given {{PD-UKGov}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, fair point, I guess I had the William Jennings Bryan campaign FAC images on my mind -- Tommy, can you deal with this? Actually a bit more on the source would help too -- online, printed copy, whichever. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the tag has been changed and I've added the image's source (scanned from an 1894 original).Tommy20000 (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Herne_Hill_railway_station/archive1&oldid=864112216"