Talk:Charing Cross railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 07:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Check your "Main Lines" as they're "main lines" now. (See the suc-boxes and "Mainline railways around the South Bank" map for more)

  Frankly, I think whoever moved them in the first place should have cleaned up after themselves - fixed anyhow Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Could link boat train even though it's not a wildly amazing article.

  Done (I didn't realise somebody wrote such an article)

• "during World War I. In the early 20th century" reads a little odd to me because WWI was in the early 20th century...

  I've changed it to "by this time"; the plans to replace it were already active by the time WWI started

• "combined road / rail combo" is "combo" an encyclopedic term?

  In some places it is, but not this one - fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• "rebuilt by Terry Farrell " semantic point really, Farrell was the architect so didn't do the building at all, maybe "rebuilt to a design by Terry Farrell..." or something.

  Tweaked Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• No spaces between info and refs in the infobox please.

  Done, though the issue is actually in Template:Infobox London station

• Are station codes referenced anywhere? (this applies to all such articles)

  I took this to be outside the remit "information challenged or likely to be challenged"; it's pretty trivial to source, and the full list is downloadable here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  Verifying the station code is easy, even without that list. The code shown in the infobox after "Station code" is not just displayed as-is, but is also used to generate the four links after "External links"; specifically, "Departures", "Layout", "Facilities", "Buses". Any of those will support the claim, although the Buses one is a PDF so will take longer. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• " one of 19 stations" nineteen.

  Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• "The station was planned as the London terminus of the South Eastern Railway (SER)." the South Eastern Railway you previously linked was piped to the right article, this one is piped to a redirect. Similarly the one in the infobox.

  Fixed, though there's still a Category:Former South Eastern Railway (UK) stations, which again shows somebody has messed around with the links without clearing up after themselves properly Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  What is wrong with piping to a redirect? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Hungerford Bridge is linked in the lead, and in the subsequent two sections. And in the image caption.

  Removed the second mention in the body - for the lead and the image caption I believe that's generally considered correct Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Victoria", "London Bridge", "Waterloo", "Waterloo East" station links, the articles no longer have "railway" in the titles.

  This is because {{stnlnk}} and {{rws}} assume an article with the suffix "railway station" - having these templates means there is less formatting clutter in the article and makes things a bit easier to read when editing it. (I don't know if that's the case with Visual Editor but I've never used it)

• "The station opened on 11 January 1864 and was designed by Sir John Hawkshaw..." reads out of order to me, maybe "The station, designed by Sir John Hawkshaw, opened on 11 January 1864 ...."

  I've moved the opening date further down, past the basic engineering / construction details. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• " 164 feet (50 m) " ... "160-foot (50 m)" probably the convert template rounding, but this looks odd.

  Good catch, this is because {{convert}} needs to have whole-number rounding manually turned off Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Villiers Street has an article.

  Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Why is Cross of Eleanor Cross capitalised ?

  Because that's what reliable sources use Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• "condition of the cross deteriorated until it was in such a vulnerable condition" condition .. condition.

  Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• " the English Heritage At Risk Register in 2008" probably put "At Risk Register" in quotes or something.

  Fixed, though the actual name is "Heritage At Risk Register" (random source) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• " ultimately making 283 journeys during this time." this should be more like "283 such journeys were made during this time"

  Moved to later in the section Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• "t King George V " just "George V" is fine.

  Are you sure about that? More specifically, why is that fine and Woodrow Wilson isn't? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• " 3:57 pm " non-breaking space and "p.m." please.
• Same for 3:45.

  The nbsp was already in there, punctuation fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Link W. H. Smith in case it's not clear to our readers of the significance.

  Fixed (and to answer a potential follow up question, that was its name in 1905, not WHSmith as now) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• "An travelling timber gantry" grammar.

  Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Should that be "Hastings Express" rather than "express"?

  No, because it's showing a generic express to train to Hastings (ie: one not stopping at Grove Park, Elmstead Woods, Petts Wood and all the other minor suburban stations); fixed caption to explain this Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• "The line was electrified in 1926 to cater for suburban services. "... this comes out of order, could you not add it in the previous paragraph, it stands awkwardly alone here.

  Reorganised this Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• "was badly bombed and damaged " probably "was bombed and badly damaged" or "was severely bombed".

  Changed to damaged by fire and explosives, what's a bomb if not an explosive? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• "raid occurred overnight" too passive, the raid "took place".

  Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• " in 1951. This consisted" merge these two short sentences.

  Done (merged the last two) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Why is Mansard capitalised?

  Because I copy/pasted the title from its article, which always begins with a capital letter :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• post-modern isn't hyphenated.

  I didn't know that, fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• "In April 2016 there was a private proposal ..." what was the result, now 16 months later?

  No idea. Ask Suffolk24 who added it. I've removed it as it doesn't seem to be anything actually confirmed in offical SouthEastern / TfL documentation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Charing Cross Concourse" no need for Concourse to be capitalised.

  Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• " London & North Western Railway " our article avoids the ampersand, favouring the "and".
• Similarly "Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway ".

  Both fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• " Both stations have an Oyster Out of Station Interchange." inline ref?

  Done, also explained what an OOSI actually is so it makes sense Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note [a] and the sentence it "references" have no references.

  Fixed (the source was the next inline citation as seen in the text, but I appreciate that's not obvious)

• Ref 3 isn't a citation, it's a note.
• And it needs a ref.

  Changed to footnote. The reference is the Office of Rail and Road statistics report here, but that's automatically plumbed into Template:Infobox London station and I don't think it's easily recyclable as a reference without copying it (which would make it get out of sync) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 9, dmy dates please.
• Ref 21, en-dash for page range, and be consistent with format, cf ref 28 where you use full page number either side of the en-dash.
• Ref 29, pp and en-dash.
• Ref 36, websites usually in italics (c.f. ref 6)

  All fixed, I think, after running the usual scripts. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Are refs 41 to 46 working for you?

  Not at the moment (they are downloadable timetables); however I added these only a month ago, so this might just be a temporary glitch on SouthEastern's website. I hope not, as I've used the timetables to cite a whole bunch of tph figures both there and on London Waterloo station (next on my list) and I'm buggered if I'm going to have to do them all again! If it was a longer-term issue, InternetArchiveBot would have picked it up and dropped a note on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now, placing on hold. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: All issues looked at, any further comments? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

All looks fine but those dead links means I can't pass it right now, I tried running the "fix dead links" script from the history page, but that went haywire. Perhaps it needs to be done manually. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, I've cracked it. The URLs are technically correct, but when you send a request up to Southeastern's server, it seems to assume you're trying to do a bit of cross-site scripting attack and stops you from getting the timetable. You can only get it from the main page. I've reorganised the references to point at the main page, with instructions to "select timetable 'x'" for each one. That's about the best solution, I think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Okk, all good, nice work, promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Top ho and spiffing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)