Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/London station group/archive1

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

London station group[edit]

London station group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After the behemoth that was Wikipedia:Featured topics/List of London Monopoly locations, it was time for another "mega-project" and this time it's London termini. As it's another good topic, we're going to need another featured list to tie everything together, and that's why this is here. London is full of terminal stations, and there are more of them than you might realise. Some are big, like Waterloo, some are not-quite-so-big like Marylebone, and some like Old Street just invite people to scream "what is this doing on this list?" Still, there's a well-defined set with a finite amount of entries, so it makes sense to create an appropriate list around it, add some general history of London terminal stations as a whole, and see if it meets the FL criteria. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattximus[edit]

Comments Just a few quick ones:
  • Why is the list repeated twice? Once in group members and repeated again in the table? I think only once is sufficient.
    It was like that when I first got to the article, so I've got no strong opinions, except the list includes the four former entries while the table doesn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would remove the repeated ones, and keep the former stations under it's current heading. No need to list all stations twice right beside each other. Mattximus (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some notes begin with capitals, others do not. Need to be consistent.
    Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do the categories mean? Should there be a note beside it saying what A means, what C means? Or am I missing this somewhere?
    Categories are defined in United Kingdom railway station categories (and the individual entries should be verifiable in the "stations made easy" National Rail Enquiries pages, unless I've screwed things up) - there is a link to the article in the column header, but it might not be obvious. We could summarise that in a footnote if it would help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote the 2009 doc "Better Rail Stations", part A, section 2.1 "The stations were classified into six categories (A – F) at rail privatisation in 1996 on the basis of passenger footfall and annual income." --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep a note to that effect would be advisable. Even with specifics as to what the six categories actually mean. Otherwise it's quite mysterious.

Mattximus (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Okay, I've merged the sections, fleshing out the former terminals to give them a list too, and dropped the footnote in - hopefully that should sort things out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: I've addressed the above issues - have your concerns been resolved? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus will be returning to confirm your concerns have been addressed? If not, I'll simply go ahead in the good faith understanding that Ritchie has fixed the issues you raised. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep Looks like my issues have been addressed support. Mattximus (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DavidCane[edit]

Resolved comments from DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
:Comments first few from DavidCane:
  • Background section:
    • A link to Royal Commission would be useful here to indicate what the Commissioners of Railway Termini were.
    • A mention of Charles Pearson's proposal for an Central Railway Terminus might also be worth including as that was one of the reasons for the Royal Commission. This might go in a note.
      • I've dropped it in to the main body - as Pearson was a key player in improving public transport in London, he should at least go there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest some rephrasing for the following:
      • "The effective path of the London Inner Ring Road (except running closer to the Thames between Borough High Street and Vauxhall Bridge) was chosen as a central area through which no trains north of the Thames were allowed to enter..." This reads as if the London Inner Ring Road was a thing in the 1840s when the Commission made its decision. As a designation it dates from proposals in the County of London Plan from the 1940s. The actual area of the Commission's ban was bounded by London Bridge, Borough High Street, Blackman Street, Borough Street, Lambeth Road, Vauxhall Road, Vauxhall Bridge, Vauxhall Bridge Road, Grosvenor Place, Park Lane, Edgware Road, New Road, City Road, Finsbury Square, and Bishopsgate (a citation for this can be found in "Metropolitan Railway Termini". The Times (19277). 1 July 1846. p. 6. - there is a linked source for this in ref 7 of Metropolitan Railway.)
        • I've reworded this, and used a source that just summarises the "highlights" of the Royal Commission's recommendations after discussion with Pearson, so that should sort all that out. If you think the full list should be used, then we can look at that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...no trains north of the Thames were allowed to enter...". This suggests that no construction north of the Thames was allowed within this area, though Cannon Street and Charing Cross are both north and within the area proposed by the Commission's recommendation (Victoria is just outside).
    • "The only main railway line built across Central London was the London, Chatham and Dover Railway (LCDR) line connecting Blackfriars to Farringdon..." You could add a note mentioning that the North Western and Charing Cross Railway was also approved in 1864 as a tunnelled line between Euston, St Pancras and Charing Cross stations, though it was never built.
      • I personally think this is a little too off-topic, plus isn't this just a scheme later revived by Charles Tyson Yerkes and is now what we call the Northern line? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem. The NW&CCR was a cut and cover route intended to link the mainline stations, so not really the same as the CCE&HR, which came from a different set of proposals, though it followed a similar route in the central area.--DavidCane (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The 1864 Joint Committee on Railway Schemes (Metropolis)..." could link to Joint committee#United Kingdom to indicate what this was.
    • "By this time, around 776 acres (314 ha) of land in Central London was owned by railway companies, more than the Corporation of London." I think the area of land used might be more easily understood if expressed in square miles and square kilometres rather than hectares, for example "around 776 acres (1.22 square miles, 3.14 square kilometres)". Do we know what is the definition of "Central London" used by Ball and Sutherland? Do we know what the area of that is? It might be useful to say what the railway land was as a fraction or percentage of the total.
      • I'm ambivalent about what gets converted from what to what, does the {{convert}} template support it, though? Ball and Sunderland says, verbatim, "In 1900, 776 acres of central land was owned by railway in London - so that they ruled over more metropolitan land than the Corporation of London". I've got another source that supplies the percentage, it's not a great source but it should be sufficient for verifying numbers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It can be done:{{convert|776|acre|sqmi km2|2|abbr=in}} gives 776 acres (1.21 square miles; 3.14 square kilometres). I think the conversion from acres to square miles is of value as the source uses the words "ruled over". I think the comparison the source is making is to the City of London being traditionally known as "the square mile". The Corporation of London does not own the area of the City obviously, though the parks and open spaces it does own in Epping Forest, Hampstead Heath and other green spaces around London totals about 4,200 hectares (10,000 acres) - considerably more than that of the railway companies. I think the conversion from acres to square miles is useful, therefore, to illustrate the comparison.--DavidCane (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Circle Line was first planned in 1846 and built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries..." The "Inner Circle" was completed on 6 October 1884, so the early 20th century is not applicable here.
      • Given we've already talked about the Circle Line in the previous paragraph, I don't think this amount of detail is necessary. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done. Wasn't suggesting to put in that much detail, just to reflect on the date of completion.--DavidCane (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As an alternative to the tube, buses have connected the various terminals and inter-termini links became briefly popular in the 1920s and 1930s". What are "inter-termini links"? Are they buses?
      • Yes - the source goes into more depth - I've popped in some more details Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a useful expansion. Couple of points on this new text:
          • When you write "work buses" I assume you mean they were dedicated for their own customers' exclusive use as a shuttle service.
          • "with a regular bus services" should be "with regular bus services".
          • Link "Pullman" to Pullman train (UK).
        • --DavidCane (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DavidCane (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidCane: I've addressed the above issues - have your concerns been resolved? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--DavidCane (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A few more from DavidCane
  • Penultimate paragraph of "Background" section. Much of the terminus rebuilding took place in the 20th century. Aside from Euston, London Bridge and Blackfriars which were all rebuilt in the 20th and/or 21st centuries, Paddington (1906 to 1915), Victoria (1899 to 1908), Waterloo (1903 to 1925 in stages) were all rebuilt in the early 20th century.
    • I've reworded this slightly to take this into account. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done I have added Cannon Street to the list of redeveloped stations. It and Blackfriars have both been rebuilt twice.--DavidCane (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Supplementary comment: Of the original stations, King's Cross and Paddington are also Grade I listed and Marylebone, Victoria (both parts), Liverpool Street and the front parts of Charing Cross and Fenchurch Street are Grade II listed. I have linked listed building and added a source for St Pancras.--DavidCane (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All stations except Fenchurch Street have provided taxi services since opening." From the following context, I assume that this is intended to indicate that cabs could enter the station and drive alongside the platform. Some of the stations certainly had/have access roads for vehicles including cabs to come into the stations alongside the platforms (I've seen these at Marylebone, Paddington, Victoria and Liverpool Street), but I don't think it would have been possible at Blackfriars which is on a viaduct without much space, so "all" except Fenchurch Street may be incorrect. In any case "provided taxi services" needs clarification I think as a cab could be hailed outside any of the stations.
    • I've reworded this, also the source actually says Fenchurch Street and Blackfriars didn't have dedicated cabs (see own article for a more detailed explanation why) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cultural impact": I'm not sure that it can be said that the construction of the stations immediately led to the creation of slums in all cases. One of the reasons that some of them were sited where they were was because slums were already there, so the land was cheap to buy. Somers Town had already started to decline into slums by the time Euston and King's Cross were built.
  • Also, not all of the stations were surrounded by slums. Paddingon and Victoria stations both had quite elegant and affluent streets around them.
    • The source (Jackson) disagrees and says "This degeneration, sometimes all around ... was most marked at Paddington, Victoria, Waterloo and the Euston-St Pancras-King's Cross complex." In the case of Trellick Tower, it was only its re-appraisal from the 1990s onwards that really caused the long-awaited gentrification of the area around Paddington. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't disagree that the much of the areas around the stations did degenerate into slums eventually, but I think that there are two problems with the way this is presented at the moment: time compression and the size of the areas being considered. The wording "immediate social impact on their surrounding area from the mid-1850s onwards" and "the middle class moved out into suburbs" gives the impression that the areas became slums immediately, which is not the case. Charles Booth's poverty map of London produced for Life and Labour of the People in London (1886 to 1903) shows that the areas immediately around Paddington and Victoria stations were mostly occupied by "Middle Class, Well to Do" and "Upper-middle and upper classes. Wealthy" (you can see the map here). The descent into slums in these areas came later and the impact was quite broad across much of central London, including areas which are now amongst the most desirable places to live (Notting Hill from the 1950s to the 1970s was a very troubled area). I'm not sure how the Trellick Tower has an impact on gentrification around Paddington as it is 1.2 miles away from Paddington station (further than Grosvenor Square at the heart of Mayfair is in the opposite direction) and it isn't in a gentrified area itself.--DavidCane (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @DavidCane: I've had another go at this paragraph, bringing in another source. See what you think now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done That's more balanced. It's definitely the case that the railways facilitated and encouraged the rapid expansion of the city. In proposing the central terminus and the Metropolitan Railway it was Charles Pearson's hope and aim to enable the working man to live further from his workplace in better conditions.--DavidCane (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the verbatim text is "Shops were opened to dispense cheap souvenirs, contraceptives and provocative literature." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does he say when this was? The wording seems phrased for sneering and salacious effect. What's wrong with "cheap souvenirs" and the mention of contraceptives and "provocative literature" seems to be designed to hint at smuttiness.--DavidCane (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Once built", which implies straight after opening. It also says that Parliament passed laws in the 1880s to restrict railway growth around London to counteract this, but the damage had been done by then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The suggestion that the stations led to the encouragement of prostitution is contradicted later in the paragraph where the construction of Waterloo station is given as a reason for the area being cleaned-up.
  • Battersea and New Cross should be wiki-linked.
  • Tables - "Open date" heading should be "Opening date". "End date" should be "Ending date"
  • Second table: Despite its name, Kensington (Olympia) station is mostly in the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The borough boundary runs along the railway line and the station buildings are on the west (H&F side). Only the secondary entrance from Russell Road and the southbound platform are in RBK&C. see [2]
--DavidCane (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius[edit]

Collapsed comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments from Epicgenius:

  • I'm from New York, so I can't pretend to know what's going on here. However, I was wondering if a map could be added to this article. It would be really helpful to have a location map on this list for foreigners like me. (Just to clarify, this is optional, but can be made really quickly using the coordinates already in the article.)
I must have missed something, because I can't figure a way of doing that without copy and pasting all the co-ordinates into the template, instead of having them in-place so the OSM / KML links work. Or is that the "really quickly" option? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I meant. That's a really simple option, though the template documentation provides for more options. epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So from what I am reading, you can buy a London Terminals ticket to go from any station in the suburbs to a station in the London station group, provided that there's a direct route from the suburban station to the London "terminal" station. Is that correct? I think you can change the lead to say that.
    Not just the suburbs, from anywhere around the country, plus you can apparently do slightly bonkers things like get a train from Chelmsford to "London Terminals", get off at Stratford, potter about East London on the tube with an Oyster Card, and get back on again at Stratford for another stop down to Liverpool Street. Confused - you will be! I've added a sentence explaining how the ticket works. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that would be confusing for us Yankees. Especially for the Yankees .
    Thanks for clarifying this, I still had one question - what's a "reasonable route"? Would this mean if I started at Ealing Broadway, I couldn't go to Victoria? I think the "reasonable route" phrase should be clarified further, to note that the trip would not be considered reasonable if you have to transfer 10 times (or something like that) to get there. epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a rather thick volume called something like the National Routeing Guide, it describes what may be considered to be a reasonable route. Starting at Ealing Broadway, the only valid London terminal would be Paddington. But starting further out at Reading, valid termini would be Paddington and Waterloo; you might make a case for travelling to Victoria by changing at Clapham Junction. Starting even further out, valid termini from Oxford would be the same as Reading plus Marylebone. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All right. I suppose we should include a mention of this guide if possible. Not to be nitpicky or anything, but one person's reasonable route might be another person's never-in-a-lifetime path. Of course, if the "reasonable routes" are the routes that a person with common sense would take (i.e. not going in the reverse direction to go to another terminal), it should be phrased in that way instead. epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think we should only add it if a third-party source talks about it any more than "any reasonable route". Maybe that's something that Hassocks can deal with, as mentioned below. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, I'll wait until he adds the sources. I'll look it over afterward. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the initial building boom, stations needed to be expanded and widened, which happened throughout the century - I find this sentence in particular awkward, because the middle phrase is stating the obvious. How about something like "Following the initial building boom, stations were expanded and widened throughout the century due to increased demand"?
I've changed this to "Throughout the 19th century, stations were expanded and upgraded to fit demand" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • several times in the case of London Bridge - I also found this awkward. I feel like it would be better if the sentence said, "...and London Bridge was rebuilt several times".
Gone with something similar Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 300 acres (120 ha) of land around Battersea and New Cross was - "was" should be "were" since we're talking about the acres.
I don't think that's right - the "was" is referring to "land" which is singular. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky, I know. Let me put it another way: if I said "Around 300 pounds of weapons was destroyed", that would be incorrect because I was referring to pounds, not weapons. I can verify by simplifying this sentence to "Around 300 pounds ... was destroyed", which is obviously incorrect. So in that same pattern, you can simplify to "Around 300 acres (120 ha) ... was taken up by railway lines and interchanges", which doesn't fit. "Were", however, would work with this type of sentence, no matter if you're talking about land, weapons, or something else.
The sentence would also be grammatically correct if you said, "a 300-acre (120 ha) area around Battersea and New Cross was". In this case, "was" refers to "area", which is singular. epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded this entire sentence, which neatly side-steps the issue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Former stations", what's deslited? Did you mean "delisted"?
Yup, that was done in the revamp for earlier comments - must have been tired Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this seems like a great list. epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another question: Why was Kensington Olympia delisted? Could this be included in the article as well? epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
National services were introduced to Olympia in 1986, meaning it could be used to interchange with the tube network, as could changing at Clapham Junction. These gradually ran down again, meaning the station was no longer an obvious "London Terminals" depot. I don't have a source that explains that as the reason, and I can only go on what was in cited in the article for a long time as a reference to the relevant National Fares Manual, which is at least verifiable if somebody can dig out a copy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding. I suppose there aren't any more issues that I could see. I thereby support this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man[edit]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Joint Committee]]" broken...
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would do the same" not keen, maybe just "would follow"?
Good idea Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thameslink is piped to a redirect back to ... Thameslink.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • May well need a key to explain:
    • "London services" means
I think instead of "London services" this should be "area served" or "area of Britain served" - how does that grab you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Green and red arrows indicating changes in passengers from 2016 to 2017
You think? The same arrows are used in the railway station infoboxes themselves, and I don't think anyone's complained Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category
Category is covered in a footnote Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Platform - Terminal column doesn't sort correctly.
This appears to be because the presence of <ref> tags means that the table thinks it's alphanumeric instead of numeric and sorts accordingly - how do you fix that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open datea and End date columns don't sort correctly.
As above, except now mistaking date for alphanumeric Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broad Street is piped to a redirect a couple of times.
Only because somebody unilaterally moved the article without discussion (and the subsequent RM I filed returned as "no consensus"). Fixed, anyway Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35 ("Luxury flats instead of birdsong: can regeneration ever be the right thing?") needs author.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 38 ("Part A: Consistent Standards" (PDF)" ) needs page number/range.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 39 ("Network RUS Stations (PDF)") needs page number/range.
While looking for this one, I noticed not all the categories were verifiable in the source given, so I've hunted down replacements and put those in place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 60 ("Part D: Annexes") needs page number/range.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 62 "Jackson 1984 pp. 213,215." needs a space after the comma.
I can't change that, it's a cosmetic edit! Nah, just kidding - fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 68 "Jackson pp. 95-97." needs en-dash.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 76 no need to relink ATOC, or if you insist, link it at ref 6 as well.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I've addressed the above issues - though some of them need further discussion, particularly how to get non-alphanumeric sorting working on a column that has inline citations in it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've resolved the sorting issue, because as usual, I'm spectacularly good at this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got the numeric ones working on the main list Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, we both did exactly the same edit at approximately the same time. I added all those nts templates just to find that you'd just done it. Bravo! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So are we done? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know yet. I haven't had a chance to properly re-review, just picked up a couple of your queries. I'll get back to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Hassocks5489[edit]

Collapsed comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment: Ritchie333, The Rambling Man, Epicgenius: over the next few days I can deal with sourcing and, if necessary, improving the ticketing side of this article (including the Kensington Olympia anomaly, definition of reasonable/permitted routes and so on), as this is one of my specialisms and I have various sources. I don't want to overload the article with too much intricate detail, though, so I might draft something and put it here for consideration. Separately, I created and uploaded the non-free image File:APTIS Tickets x6 - Variations on LONDON.jpg many years ago; it was my first and only attempt at writing a non-free rationale, so I don't know if it needs improving or even whether it is appropriate to retain the image in the article ... one for the image specialists to comment on, I suppose. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassocks5489: That would be excellent. As you can probably guess, I originally intended to simply create List of London terminal stations and run with that; then somebody pointed out what exactly qualifies as a "London terminal", then I discovered this article via this and this and thought, "well if we've got a reliably sourced definition of a London terminal, then we should use that". I think it would be extremely helpful to tidy up the loose ends regarding how Olympia ended up on the list, and what a "reasonable route" is. Why isn't Stratford on the list? I think the FUR is sufficient; to be honest it's right on the limit of a "threshold of originality", being the old BR logo and a bunch of text. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great; I'll start drafting something when I get home tonight, time permitting. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so as not to overload the main WP:FLC page with notes and references, I've posted a suggested revision of the "Definition" paragraph at the following user subpage: User:Hassocks5489/Images. The wording is a rough first draft, so please suggest/make improvements. I've tried to cover all points discussed above without going into too much unnecessary detail, and have tried to find suitable references for everything. Some points:
  • Moorgate was a funny one because in the 1983–86 era it was half-in, half-out of the group (!): it counted as a London station only from the Northern City Line direction, not from the Widened Lines. When it was put back in the group in 1988, it was available via both routes ... but the intermediate Thameslink stations of Farringdon and Barbican were not (and never have been) included. And that's a whole other story.
  • I know why Kensington Olympia was removed in 1994, but I can't find suitable sourcing and it's too technical for this article anyway.
  • Again, there are reasons why "LONDON BR" was changed to "LONDON BRIT RAIL" on tickets, and why "LONDON" did not appear immediately after privatisation, but unless there is general agreement to include discussion of these obscure technical points I won't introduce them.
  • I have hard copies or scans of all the offline sources mentioned, in case anybody would like any source checking, wording confirmation etc.

Hope that helps. Ping me with any questions. @Ritchie333:, @The Rambling Man:, @Epicgenius: Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look a little later. epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my comments regarding the addition:
Maybe note A can be integrated into the prose itself? The note is disconnected from the rest of the article, since the note names nine stations without any prelude.
Kensington Olympia was removed from May 1994 is missing a few words, so this would be "Kensington Olympia was removed from the list in May 1994". Along these lines, a short explanation might be nice.
Ref 13 "General Notes" has a cite error. Since we're aiming for Featured List, this is an issue that needs to be fixed. I think you can work around it by placing the "Unpaginated" note outside the template. epicgenius (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hassocks5489: Pinging. epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't around on WP for a few days. I have made some tweaks to the paragraph at User:Hassocks5489/Images. Shall I go ahead and update the "Definition" section accordingly? Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hassocks5489: Well there's been no feedback for over a fortnight, so I would suggest just doing it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff; I've done so just now. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although note I have contributed to this list ("Definition") paragraph. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intermezzo[edit]

This review appears to have fizzled to a halt. There has been a lot of constructive comments, particularly from David, and the article is in a better shape, but I'm not sure if there's consensus or not to promote as an FL. Any other thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 well we'd normally be looking for three or more supports and all open comments to be resolved before promoting. Perhaps you could chase up the reviewers to see how we stand. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Mattximus, DavidCane, Epicgenius, Hassocks5489 - can you either close your comments or say what additional problems are present, so we can move this forward. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 now we're getting there... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that was British Rail's slogan! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw[edit]

I have just seen this as I have not looked at FLC for a while. I found the article interesting, well written and suitably referenced. A few minor comments:

  • In the current stations list if you sort by "Annual entry/exit" the numbers sort appropriately but the green or red triangles are interspaced. I think I know what these mean (that it was an increase or decrease on the preceding year) but I can't see this explained anywhere.
It's an increase / decrease on the previous year - I've dropped a footnote in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I thought that was the meaning.— Rod talk 20:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Background" section it is mentioned that St Pancras is a Grade I listed building, but I believe many of the others are also listed and these are not mentioned (probably not vital but might be worth mentioning).
I've dropped in a sentence saying that King's Cross and Paddington are also Grade I listed, so we've got all them. (I don't think any others are Grade I are they?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I think that is all the GI's.— Rod talk 20:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hassocks did that bit - to be honest, it's mostly text, the only possible thing that takes it over the threshold of originally in my view is the colours and the BR logo, but file copyrights aren't my speciality. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally looking good.— Rod talk 18:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tweaks. I can now support this as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 20:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_list_candidates/London_station_group/archive1&oldid=836156740"