Talk:Marylebone station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 23:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

General

Please double check any comments I made at Talk:London King's Cross railway station/GA1 for applicability here. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Forgot about central / Central London - fixed now Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• " Travelcard Zone 1." our article calls it "fare zone 1".

I'm feeling out of date. Done, but also clarified as "Transport for London fare zone 1" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "main line " or "mainline" etc etc.

Seem to be mostly "main line" here, which as we've just found is the way forward Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• " main tube lines" Tube?

I think so, given London Underground has "the Tube" in its lead Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Put GCML after the first mention of the expanded version of it.

done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• " Following privatisation, the" I think you should be explicit, i.e. the privatisation of British Rail...

Yes, because not everybody will know exactly what we're talking about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "new chord connecting the main line" chord? main line or mainline?

As Redrose put it on Talk:Liverpool Street station/GA1 : a chord is always a curve connecting two otherwise-unconnected rail lines that lie at tangents to that curve - usually the two rail lines are straight, one being at a higher level than the other. We don't have an article for it at present, though I won't object to a chord (railway) redlink. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a suitable "glossary of railway terms" we can point at? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't find one, though I did come across the gripping List of British Railways shed codes. I think this may be a point to raise on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways as it's mildly baffling to the non-enthusiast reader. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've raised it there. In the meantime, perhaps redlink it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's add "chord" to Glossary of United Kingdom railway terms and link there! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I am struggling to find a definition in reliable sources! I can see blogs that define it (usually complaining about mixing up the mathematical definition with the railway terminology eg: here), and plenty of sources that talk about specific railway chords. A search on the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't bring up the definition. I'm stumped. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Accessible Yes [1]" no space after Yes please.

That appears to be a feature of {{Infobox London station}} Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we fix that? Not in scope of this review of course... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed it and it seems to have fixed the issue. If I get an angry mob of UKRAIL people at my door, well we'll cross that (railway) bridge when we come to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Location

• " south east" hyphen.
• "of St Johns Wood" apostrophe.
• "and 453 and " comma after 453.

Done, done and thrice done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

National Rail

• "of Deutsche Bahn AG" ditch AG.

  Done (I assume "AG" is the equivalent of "Ltd" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  AG is Aktiengesellschaft, or joint-stock company. It's not necessarily limited liability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Couple of piped redirects here, "Birmingham Snow Hill" is piped to "Birmingham Snow Hill Station" which redirects to "Birmingham Snow Hill station", " Leamington to Stratford" suffers similarly.

Done, though I notice that Leamington–Stratford line is unsourced, and a search for that specific title doesn't bring back much in the way of reliable source. Has that article got the wrong title? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Should the History section be at the heading level above the one its currently at?

Not sure. The basic idea is the history here is the history for the mainline station, not the tube which comes later. London Waterloo station doesn't do it this way, though that's only C-class, so I wouldn't base too much on it. Liverpool Street station does. Euston railway station doesn't. London Paddington station does. The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Okk. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

History

• Sir Edward Watkin piped to Edward William Watkin, redirects to Edward Watkin.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Put (MS&LR) after the first expanded use of the term. Same for GCR. And LNER. And BR. And WSMR.

Have you ever read an in-depth railway book (essential for these types of articles)? They assume you know what all the acronyms mean; after a while you can tell your LB&SCR from your LD&CR. Anyway, should be all fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• " an Act to complete" link Act.

done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• " cut and cover " should be hyphenated.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Railway linked London to High Wycombe, Aylesbury, Rugby, Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Manchester" here, it's all the railway stations that are linked, perhaps you could say "Railway linked London to stations in..." to avoid the easter egg.

Good idea. Done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "engineer for the Great Central Railway" for the GCR.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "the station's design is simple and modest" I would think it would "the station's design was modest." and that'll do.

Done (actually copyedited) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• You go from present tense to past tense to present tense in three sentences when describing the architecture here.

I've put everything in the present tense, on the grounds that the station building still exists, except for working the GCR crest into the railings, which isn't an ongoing thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "was far higher than expected, nearly bankrupting the company.[22] " any more details?

  I don't have anything in any of the sources I've got. Since the GCR didn't actually go bankrupt there won't be a log of anything in the London Gazette. Several sources say that the amount spent on the railway was relatively astronomical and while great for passengers was lousy for return on investment, but don't go into specific details. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  It's sourced to Dow vol. 2 p. 287, where the word "bankrupt" isn't used. There's a paragraph of just over eleven lines showing e.g. "...at the end of 1895 capital receipts, totalling £3,163,000, would be overspent to the tune of £411,000" and "... Pollitt estimated that the ultimate outlay would reach £11,477,000, whereas the total capital and borrowing powers at present authorized were for £8,200,000". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  Well that explains why I can't find anything in my sources; it sounds like "near bankrupt" is just originally researched hyperbole. We could put the capital and borrowing figures in a footnote. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "working-class people" "middle class housing" - hyphen or not?

I think there should be one Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "(This land..." never keen on whole sentences in parentheses, what's the point? If it's a note, make it a footnote, if not, leave it as a sentence.

I've written this - "filled with office blocks" makes it sound like somebody putting Lego houses in a bucket. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Wrong Wembley Stadium linked.

Fixed. I was about to ask why you need two articles, but I notice they have 55K of prose between them, so it's not unreasonable to have a content split. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Unlike other London terminii, " one too many i i i i i i's in there.

Yup, wonder why the spellchecker didn't catch that one? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "After nationalisation in 1948, British Railways attempted " spell it out and then avoid the repetition of British Rail. Perhaps "After the nationalisation of British Rail in 1948, the company attempted..."

  Was British Rail a company per se. I've rewritten this whole sentence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  No, British Railways was never a company, but was the trading/marketing name used by three organisations in succession: the Railway Executive (from January 1948); the British Transport Commission (from October 1953); and the British Railways Board (from January 1963). It was the latter that shortened it to "British Rail" in about 1965/66 (when the blue livery and double-arrow were introduced). The legal successor to the British Railways Board was BRB (Residuary) Ltd. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  I didn't think legally it could be a company because of nationalisation. As a complete aside; do modern Monopoly boards still have "British Railways" terminology on the station squares? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  Not the current ones, these don't show any railway company/organisation (but they do still depict steam locos). I don't know when "British Railways" was dropped, but certainly by July 2006. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Up local train in 1961" caption, what does "Up local" mean?

Per Rail directions#Up and down, it means "towards London" in this context. I've just said that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "In 1983 British " comma after year.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "would have closed, and converted " missing a "been" here somewhere.

Fixed, to make the conditional perfect tense match Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "dropped by about 400 per day from 1968 levels" only useful with context...

The source doesn't have them - would it be easier to say "passenger numbers remained roughly the same" which is the intent it's trying to get across (ie: why Marlyebone didn't just outright close) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "The station's fortunes turned around" whimsical!

Copyedited Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "£85 million-pound" pound pound.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• " 2–3 " 2 and 3.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Snow Hill redirect/pipe issue again.

I've gone for a straight link here; from the context it's not redundant to mention "station" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

London Underground

• " in Travelcard Zone 1." as before, "fare zone 1".

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Until 2004 a wooden escalator led into the station, one of the last on the London Underground system that had not been replaced" comma after 2004, and explain why that's such a big deal.

Done and done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Edgware Road link is piped to a redirect.

Works for me (to Edgware Road tube station (Bakerloo line)), did somebody fix it when I wasn't looking? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• The bold text in this section is unnecessary as those phrases should link to the Underground article, not this one.

Are you sure about that? There isn't a separate underground article (Marylebone tube station redirects to this sub-section), which is a convention for all London stations that's pretty much consistent. The reason it's non-obvious in the context of Monopoly is that King's Cross shares its tube station with St. Pancras, so gets a separate article, while Fenchurch Street doesn't have direct tube access full-stop. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The only time I see bold text articles is to denote alternative titles for the article, so for instance Lisson Grove has its own article, so I don't get why it should be bold here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect, in the context of above, that this possibly the remnant of a merge from long ago, in which case it would make sense for the bold to come out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "in The Beatles film " should be "in The Beatles' film "

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

References

• "pp. 534–535,797." space.
• "pp. 338–9." consistency with range formats.
• "pp. 342,370." space.
• " pp. 202,585." space.

All done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• BBC News is normally a publisher, not a work.

Are you sure about that? My understanding is that BBC News is the work, while BBC is the publisher, and that's pretty much how I've written all BBC references for years now Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Transport for London or TfL in the refs, be consistent.

Definitely Transport for London in full, no reason not to Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 49 needs an en-dash.

Assuming you mean "Network Rail 2006 pp. 4–5" - done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "pp. 2,12." space.
• "pp. 72,75." space.
• "pp. 158–9" format.

All done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Gourvish, Terry; Anson, Mike (2004). British Rail 1974 – 1997" unspaced endash.

Done (this was the same issue with King's Cross; obviously I used the same source for both articles) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Overall

No service maps?

Done, after a bit of head scratching. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm putting it on hold. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I think everything's been addressed one way or another; a few action points to still resolve. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, nearly there, I've responded to a couple above. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Just seen them. I've popped in a few more fixes as suggested. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. When I get back to my hotel, I'll give the article a final review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Right, I've fixed up the definition of "chord" which is now in the glossary list, and updated the "nearly bankrupt" claim mentioned above. I think that's it, unless I'm missed anything? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we're there, so one last look and we can promote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 yup, all good. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Cool, this one was a bit easier than Kings X, but the history behind it is fascinating, considering it was a latecomer, nearly closed, but now has been revived. I might even be using it soon to see friends in the Midlands (the Virgin Pendolinos from Euston - New Street are about £50 return from London) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You now are mandated to move onto a FTC which is "Main line railway stations of London". Chop chop. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad Monopoly did just LNER stations, had they done the real big four (Kings X, Euston, Paddington and Waterloo) that would have been a lot more of a slog. I seem to recall DavidCane wanted to have a go at Euston; the tube station is GA already. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be super-sexy to have Good Articles featured across multiple Featured Topics. Weird, I know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You could have "Oxford Circus" as a good topic, with Oxford Street, Regent Street and Oxford Circus tube station (just missing Oxford Circus itself), thought that's taking the piss a bit. Or, all zone 1 tube stations, which I believe some substantial work has been done already. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Two words: CRACK ON! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Euston would be interesting as it was the first proper mainline terminus in London (the GA for the tube station is mine) and Paddington mainline station was a GA until 2015. Perhaps I'll redo that one and we can have GA articles for the mainline and each of the two tube stations (which I put in at GAN last week). I did once think about doing St Pancras after I wrote the GA for William Henry Barlow its engineer, but it's history has become so complicated by the rebuild for the international services. Another one I've started and put to one side is a rewrite of the King's Cross St Pancras tube station article, which is very lacking in history.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)