Talk:Montpelier railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay myself, been on holiday a while. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Sorry for the unplanned delay, I had intended to start this review on Saturday 1st September but I've lost six days.

I'm going to lead the Lead until last and just work my way through the article from Description. Pyrotec (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Description & Services -

These two section are mostly descriptive. Having checked them, they appear to be OK.

History -

Note: This has been a particularly difficult section to review, as much of it appears to be common to Montpelier railway station and the Severn Beach Line, and I'm not too convinced that it accurately names what is being described. I suspect that it mixes some historical names with some modern names and ignores some of the "untidy bits". Having now read quite a few wikipedia articles connected with this "wider topic" and a few books, the picture is becoming somewhat clearer and also more confusing. First there was the isolated Bristol Port Railway and Pier, which ran from Hotwells to Avonmouth. It needed a link to Bristol, the Clifton Extension Railway but got into financial difficulties and the latter seems to have taken over the BPR&P in the 1890s. (These two railways are introduced in reverse order, but I can see the logic behind that decision.) The BPR&P and possibly the CER terminated at Avonmouth (but possibly not at the same place), but this is not made clear in the article. It them seems that in the 1920s the GWR made one or two links from the north, called the Severn Beech loop line, but this is not mentioned in these two article with common text. Finally, part of the BPR&P, the CER and part(s) of the Severn Beech loop line is nowadays known as the Severn Beech line, but this is not explained either.

Correct, and yes, there is a lot of duplication given that I wrote all those articles. I haven't finished the SBL one, just had other stuff to do for a while but considered it suitable to put in as it was better than what was present before. I have seen no article refer to a "severn beach loop line", only the SBL. I accept that yes, there is a bit of tidying done, but that is sensible for an encyclopaedia. It makes sense to use modern terminology, but place that in a historical context. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, looking at David & Charles', A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain, Volume 13 (1981) the GWR & Midland joint line ran from around Ashley Heath (Ashley Hill junction) to Sea Mills (back from there to Hotwells) and then to just beyond Avonmouth Dock. There was a Midland link from Kingswood junction and a GWR link from Narroways Hill Junction, both running to Ashley Hill junction; and at the other end there were two GWR links to Avonmouth: one from Filton via Henbury and one from Pathway going over the top of the Severn tunnel near Pilning. These seem to link to the CER at what is now called St Andrew's junction, but there were other points nearby. The opening dates of those lines can be found in Regional History, volume 13, one is called the Avonmouth-Pilning line and the other one used part of the Bristol and South Wales Union (or ran parallel to it), so the "Severn Beech loop line" might not be the proper name. Also, what is now known as the "SBL" were parts of separate lines (which had names) and opened (and sometimes closed) at different dates and the SBL service could not have operated until all the necessary bits had been opened. Pyrotec (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Joint railway era -

I believe (and I have two reliable references to support it) that the statement The Clifton Extension Railway was opened from Narroways Hill Junction to Clifton Down .... is incorrect. The line did not appear to begin at Narroways Hill Junction. The Clifton Extention Railway seems to have started at Ashley Hill junction (with Montpelier as the first railway station); and eastwards from there, firstly the GWR link line ran to a junction near Stapleton Hill station and secondly the Midland Railway link ran over the top of the GWR line to Kingswood junction (see File:Bristol RJD 9.jpg). Midland services from St Philip's (or Temple Meads) could (with running powers) traverse the GWR's Stapleton Hill junction - Ashley Hill link line. Now, it might be that the junction at Stapleton Hill was called "Narroways Hill Junction", or the junction was moved: I have no information either way (looking at plans, I suspect the latter). However, the article states The initial service provided at Montpelier by the Midland Railway was between Clifton Down, Fishponds and Mangotsfield ...., so these would have gone over the top of the GWR line to Kingswood junction and not through the Stapleton Hill station junction.
From what I have found online and in books, the CER is considered to include the links from the main lines. Verifiability, not truth. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC) - I'll restate my comment, the claim is currently unverifiable as a whole book consisting of 112 page is used a block reference for 15 citations. Page numbers should be provided to allow the claim that you are making to be verified. The burden of proof is on the editor making the claim. Oakley (2006) does provide verification that the junction at the far end the GWR link line was Narroways Hill Junction but not that the joint line ended at Narroways Hill Junction - its on page 9. Ownership rights are also clear from the figure I've added above which was published in 1914 (and I suspect the original version is held in one of the UK's archives) and in other sources such as: David & Charles', A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain, Volume 13 (1981) and Casseley's, Britian's Joint Lines (1968). Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I would suggest that the Oakley (2006) reference be split into two references: much of the material on the line appears in pages 8-11 and that on the station in pages 83-85. That would reduce the work needed. Pyrotec (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some of these, and more:

Maggs, Colin G. (1981). Rail Centres: Bristol. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0-7110-1153-2. DX/1081. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Pre-Grouping Railway Junction Diagrams 1914. London: Ian Allan. ISBN 0-7110-1256-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Casserley, H.C. (1968). Britain's Joint Lines. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0-7110-0024-7. 469 CEX 468. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
MacDermot, E.T. (1931). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. II: 1863-1921. Paddington: Great Western Railway. OCLC 55853736. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

from these it's clear that the joint line began where the GWR and Midland connected at Ashley Hill Junction. Opening dates and mileages are given by MacDermot. Under the heading "Great Western Railway" he shows that "Bristol, Narroways Hill Junction-Ashley Hill Junction with Clifton Extension Line" (36 chains) was opened on 1 October 1874 (MacDermot 1931, p. 600) and under the heading "Clifton Extension Railway (Joint with Midland, 1874)" he shows "Bristol, Ashley Hill Junction-Clifton Down" (1 mile 37 chains) was also opened on 1 October 1874 (MacDermot 1931, p. 630). From the differing headings and widely separated page numbers, yet the same opening date, it's clear to me that ownership changed at Ashley Hill Junction. This is confirmed by Casserley (1968, p. 125) and the map in Maggs (1981, p. 8). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that contribution Redrose64. I have the first and last books on the list. I must get the two volumes of MacDermot, or more likely the 1973 fascimly reprint. Pyrotec (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use the information on pages 8-11 at any point. I did not use any of your references when writing the article, so including them would be simply bullshitting. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...stopping for tonight. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked some more sources, it seems that the junction near Stapleton Hill station was called Narroways Hill Junction. So that removes some of the "problems", but not all, mentioned immediately above. Pyrotec (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is WP:Overlinking, for example Narroways Hill Junction is wikilinked twice in the first paragraph.
Fixed that instance. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC) - The final paragraph talks about the extension of some trains to beyond Avonmouth to Severn Beach. Well yes, but that was facilitated (I believe) by the GWR building the Severn Beech loop line in the 1920's. That also accounts for the Some trains made circular trips to and from Temple Meads via Clifton Down and Henbury or Pilning, loop services, but again the articles merely states that they happened without stating how they were made possible, from that time.[reply]
Yes, I agree, but I haven't found any references to when they started. I think the "via... Henbury or Pilning" is a suitable description of how they were made possible. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Repeat of above comment) ... there were two GWR links to Avonmouth: one from Filton via Henbury and one from Pathway going over the top of the Severn tunnel near Pilning. These seem to link to the CER at what is now called St Andrew's junction, but there were other points nearby. The opening dates of those lines can be found in Regional History, volume 13, one is called the Avonmouth-Pilning line and the other one used part of the Bristol and South Wales Union (or ran parallel to it). Pyrotec (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Repeat of above comment) I have not found any reference saying when the services started, so I cannot add that information. "via Pilning or Henbury" is a perfectly acceptable way of saying how the services ran. I'm very glad you have those books, but I don't, so fucking fix it yourself. I will not add information to the article that I cannot verify myself. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- British Rail and privatisation -

...stopping for tonight. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK.

Future -

Looks OK.

WP:Lead -

...stopping for tonight. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC) - The lead is intended to both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the point points. As currently written, it is non-compliant with WP:Lead, in respect of relative emphasis and the inclusion of information that does not appear in the body of the article. More than half the current article is about the history of the line and more that one quarter of the article is concerned with pre-nationisation history, but the majority of the lead is concerned with post-1990s details. The comment Its three letter station code is MTP appears in the Lead, but it is not in the article (the infobox is not considered part of the article).[reply]
I have added an extra brief comment but frankly I believe that the summary as was was fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History -

A comment: ideally the history section should have {{main}} links to articles such as the Seven Beach Line and the Clifton Extension Railway, and the article be limited to summarising the relative points of those articles in respect of Montpelier railway station. I'm not going to make this a recommendation, as Montpelier railway station seems to have more detailed information about the lines/railways than the "main" articles themselves.

At this point, I'm putting the review On Hold. The lead needs attention as does the history section, however, not much work is need to bring the article up to required standard. Pyrotec (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will look into it later today. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the station code from the lead, though I don't see how the infobox is not part of the article. I have added a link to the SBL's history section, and removed a bit, but most of the history section is service history which, to me, seems relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is there to provide a summary of the information given in the article (well some of it such as "open" and "close" dates, owner, etc). However, it also by convention includes usage statistics - usage statistics are not in the article, but I'm not asking from them to be in the article (as long as they are verifiable I'm not intending to pursue this). If something (I'm not talking about usage statistics here) is not considered sufficiently important to put it in the article, why put it in the lead and the infobox, particularly as putting stuff in the leads that does not appear in the article is non-compliant with WP:Lead? Note: the presence of an Infobox is a WP:Trains convention (in this case), it's not mandatory for a GA (nor a FA, beleive).

I don't understand the comment about the history section, you state that it is relevant (and I'm not disagreeing), so as it is relevant why is it not in the lead (in summary form)?

I've marked what I consider non-compliances with WP:WIAGA, most if not all of them have been outstanding since 14th September 2012. Pyrotec (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In {{Infobox GB station}}, the parameter |code=MTP isn't just used to produce the "Station code" row - it's also used to generate the links behind "Live arrivals/departures and station information from National Rail Enquiries". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification, Redrose64. On that basis I'm happy for it to remain in the infobox, but I still don't see why it was put in the Lead, it does not seem to be particularly noteworthy - its been removed from there so I'm happy in that respect. Pyrotec (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination of this article because I am fucking fed up of Pyrotec and want nothing more to do with this shitfest. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to belatedly apologise for the above comment. It was not acceptable and I wish I could take it back. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]