Talk:Piccadilly line/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 10:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Vincent60030, per your message on the backlog drive talk page, I'll pick this one up. Will try to complete it this week but may lack availability today and tomorrow. Hope to give you some feedback soon. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GACR#1a. Well written: the prose is clear, concise and understandable.
GACR#1a. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for linking.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
GACR#2a. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
GACR#2b. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
GACR#2b. All inline citations are from reliable sources.
GACR#2b. All quotations are cited and their usage complies with MOS guidelines.
GACR#2c. No original research.
GACR#2d. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
GACR#3. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
GACR#4. Neutral (NPOV).
GACR#5. Stable.
GACR#6a. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.
GACR#6b. Images are relevant to the topic with appropriate captions.

I use the above checklist to measure progress. The article is stable so I've checked GACR#5.

I've looked at several of the images which seem to be "own work" but there are a considerable number of these in total, especially in the List of stations section. Given time constraint here, could you please provide a summary of image usages by telling me how many there are which are UK PD, licensed for reuse, fair use, own work, etc. and confirm that all of them meet the terms of GACR#6a.

There is one immediate problem in that the Horne 2000 citation links in range 109 to 115 don't point to any source in the bibliography. It appears to be a dating error as the Horne books listed are dated 2003 to 2007. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading the lead section which has five paragraphs and I think that is too many per MOS:LEADLENGTH. I would remove the fourth paragraph re the old Aldwych line because that is additional information only. It certainly belongs in the article but isn't important enough for the lead. The final paragraph of the lead begins with "This 53-station tube line has two depots". The number of stations has already been stated in the opening paragraph so you should amend to "The line has two depots". No Great Shaker (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the initial review NGS. Yeah, I probably also left out a book or two. I'll provide you the list of images summary soon as I am hands full on my assignments :3 Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also amended the lead and fixed the reference error where I was careless enough not to add the book I referenced. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images from the list of stations sections are mostly own works of a few users (some imported from Flickr), with the majority of images from user Sunil, and a number from Oxymann et al. Only two are public domain images in the UK, which are the ones depicting Acton Town and Hammersmith stations. The rest of the images are imported from Flickr or are own work from Wikipedians. The exception is the Lots Road Power station picture, which is a public domain picture. There are no fair use images. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vincent, thanks for these updates and I do think we're heading in the right direction, although I still need to read everything again in a more detailed way because I've noted a few points. They are mostly matters of detail, though. For example, one of them is that Piccadilly is mis-spelt in the map with a single "c", but I don't know if you can correct that. If not, we'll live with it.

As far as the images go, I've checked all those in the main body of the article and they are fine because they are own work at least. Those in the station list section are "borrowed", as it were, from parent articles and I think that if there were any problems with them, the issues should be raised there. However, I accept your rationale for them and I'm checking GACR#6. The captions are good.

I've also checked several other criteria including the most important one of all, in my view, which is GACR#1a – well written. There are five criteria which I still want to think about so I'm leaving those as neutral for the moment. I'll come back on this tomorrow with a final review report. It is a very interesting article. I've been to Heathrow on this line but I've never been to Uxbridge, although I have been to Harrow but not by train. I think the furthest north I've been on the line is Finsbury Park; I've certainly been to Arsenal – quite a few times, actually (footie). Anyway, enough of my reminiscences. All the best. Back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take your time on this read as it is considerably long (I mean it's like 150kB)! South Harrow is the closest to Harrow but not exactly in the town centre (where you would take the Met instead). As for the picture, I'll have to erm, tickle me pink HAHAHA. You were not the only one who noticed that typo (these cute errors are on other maps too so it's unsurprising). I don't think I can reach the original editor but I suppose maybe @DavidCane: knows a little. Enjoy the day my lads! Imma have some tea Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 20:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the spelling of "Piccadilly".--DavidCane (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another sidenote, feel free to nitpick just a little bit more if needed as I may take this to FA after a DYK :) Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DavidCane

History section
- The chronology is out of order or muddled together in places. For example, the first part of the western extension from Hammersmith to South Harrow opened on 4 July 1932 before the northern extension.
  I understand your viewpoint. From my perspective, I split it into different extension sections, which was not exactly focused on chronology. The non-splitting history content was about general stuff and miscellaneous but notable facts such as reconstruction and spiral escalator. The subsections are meant to describe each extension area so I fear that if I rearrange it now it is going to be really messy. I also think that combining both the cockfosters and western extensions sections would be too long for readers. NGS I would love to hear your opinion on this. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion in the western extension section of the construction of the opening of the the District Railway and Metropolitan Railway to Uxbridge could be simplified or omitted as that history is not directly relevant to the Piccadilly line, except to say that the Piccadilly line was extended over existing tracks of both of these.
  I have attempted to fix this. Feel free to see if this is addressed. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference to the extension to Richmond does not mention that this was an approved plan for the Central London Railway, so the "was decided that the Piccadilly line extension was favourable over the Central London Railway's (CLR, now part of the Central line)" needs explanation.
  Done. It is about capacity and affordability. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The spiral staircase at Holloway Road is mentioned after the Piccadilly Circus rebuild, though it was tested 20 years earlier.
  @DavidCane: I see what you mean here. My initial intention was that each paragraph was about a different form of notable event since I classified a station rebuild different from an innovative spiral escalator invention. Let me know if I should still move around these events for conciseness. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There was never any plan for a station at St Ann's Road. There is an electrical substation for the Piccadilly line just to the north of here on Colina Road, but it was never considered for a station site. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harringay (St Ann's Road) tube station. I have removed this and turned the note about Bounds Green being omitted into a standard sentence.
- It's not clear what the bit about a third track between Finsbury Park and Wood Green is about - can you explain this further?
  Sure thing! I'll do the rephrasing on the article. In Horne's book, it was stated that the priority of the extension was to keep speeds high. Therefore, it's either going to be constructing a third express track because St. Ann's Road would be built or just two tracks without the station. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I tried rephrasing but it seems to me i need to briefly mention St. Ann's Road. Would it be better if I just omit this fact? Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Seven stations were considered for closure". You mention the three that were closed, but not the other four. J E Connor in London's Disused Underground stations has a memo that listed eight to be considered for closure: Park Royal (the original one), Gloucester Road (Piccadilly only), Brompton Road, Down Street, Covent Garden, York Road, Caledonian Road, Gillespie Road (opened only for football matches). Barons Court is also mentioned for closure of the District line platforms.
  Good suggestion. I unfortunately have no access to that book hence rewording it to "several" was the best option. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "The latter produced torpedo sights at the transfer concourse between the District and Piccadilly lines" What is a torpedo sight? These were fired blind in WWII and didn't use a sight - do you mean periscopes?
  I am clueless at weapons, but I can take that. The same sentence was used in the station article itself fyi. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Torpedoes don't have periscopes either. You could ask WT:MILHIST for an appropriate term. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You could also mention that the Aldwych branch was used to store British Museum exhibits.
  Done! Thank you lots. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "The new junction was then built into a concrete box which connected all four underground tunnels" Which four tunnels? There would have been one on the loop and two on the line between Terminals 1, 2, 3 to Terminal 5.
  I have removed the word four as it was rather confusing in context. It was meant to describe the separated tunnels instead of a continuous portion, so ignoring the T4 tunnel which was already merged into the two tunnels ending west of Heathrow Central, it was the T5 tunnels sections (two) and the other side. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture section
- I've made a number of copy edits and expansions to the architectural section to correct some incorrect narrative and description. The chronology in this section is somewhat muddled with reference to work by Holden and Green mixed together with even more recent items. I suggest this is organised in chronological order with Leslie Green first, then Holden, then later, more recent developments.
  No problem! I've done some reorganisation and hope it is ok. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Harry Wharton Ford also designed the stations at Barons Court and Hammersmith, though the latter has been replaced.
  Added Barons Court which was fortunately cited by Labyrinths. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--DavidCane (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

Thank you, David, that is very useful for me as reviewer because there's a lot of information here that I couldn't have known about. Vincent, I think in view of David's comments that I should place the article on hold for seven days and I'll complete my review when the points above have all been addressed. I'll keep a watch on the pages. All the best to you both and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David NGS, a very great thank you for the grind here. I sincerely appreciate it. I have addressed all comments with a form of response. If any of these need further development, feel free to ping me again. :D Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. It's looking as if this is just about ready for me to review again. Not sure if I will have time today but I will try to spend some time on it tomorrow. Should finish it this weekend latest. Back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

Re the "torpedo periscope" point raised above, the terminology is incorrect. Torpedoes don't have periscopes. The sub used a periscope for aiming purposes and the torpedo once fired was on its own. I would suggest removing the entire sentence unless you can specify either torpedoes or periscopes being manufactured at the site.
Found it! Must be data computers. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 08:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a British article, all distances should be stated primarily in miles, yards, feet, inches – not metric. The metric should be in the brackets. This applies to all measures including weights, if any.
Noted. I should take note of this when I write other British articles too. Thank you Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the line as built and extended down to 1933 was surveyed in miles, chains and yards, the whole of the London Underground was re-surveyed in kilometres during the 1970s. The Central line station at Ongar (since closed) was taken as the zero point for the entire system, with Mile End station, 33.130 km from Ongar, being the datum for the District line; Baron's Court, 47.840 km from Ongar via Mile End, being the datum for the Piccadilly line. Distances are measured backward to Cockfosters (22.040 km), and forward to Uxbridge (73.030 km) and Heathrow Terminal 5 (69.400 km). Distances for any point (station, junction, tunnel mouth, etc.) on the Piccadilly line are easily sourceable in kilometres, less easily in miles and chains, particularly west of Hounslow West. I am not sure whether the extension to Heathrow Terminals 1,2,3 was surveyed in imperial or metric, but I am certain that the two extensions beyond (the Terminal 4 loop and the Terminal 5 extension) were surveyed in metric from the outset. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input Redrose :D The only thing now is, I have already moved around everything oops. I am not sure if the reverse should be done instead now lol. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, the length is given as 71 km (44 mi) but in the Route section it is 73.97 km (45.96 mi). Please check throughout to ensure measurement consistency.
Fixed this. My due apology for your trouble on this. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, the Ridership parameter gives a 2012 figure. Do you have a later one?
I'm sorry but I'm afraid TfL doesn't really update this. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 01:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cockfosters and Northfields to be linked in the infobox; also Northfields in the lead.

Link District and Metropolitan lines in lead.

Arnos Park, Arnos Park Viaduct and Arnos Grove are unlinked in the Route section. All stations and locations need to be linked on first mention in both the lead and the narrative.

First mention of all general terms like terracotta, concrete, shelters, blast walls, cross-platform interchange, etc. need to be linked for the benefit of the readers.
@No Great Shaker: I am surprised that concrete needs linking. Concrete is quite well known nowadays. I need a clearer definition of a balance line between what to wikilink and what not to. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 01:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All 4 points done above for these mentioned. Will continue to add more. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing links became evident as soon as I started reading in depth. I noted those above but I've come to the conclusion that linkage throughout the article is inadequate and this needs to be addressed because it is a readership necessity. I'm putting the article back 'on hold for seven days so that this can be done, as well as the other points above. I'll continue the review then but I must point out that I will have no alternative but to fail it if there should be other problems on this scale. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: I have managed to tweak the entire article to include more wikilinks. Hope this really helps now and I am sorry if it seemed like I did not put enough effort on this. I really hope I can make it through this since I do not want to miss this golden opportunity. Thank you really much for your time. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vincent, I've been unavailable today till just now. Concrete isn't a good example, I realise, but the point is that is important to be diligent about linking and especially so as you intend to go for FAC in due course. The thing is to use your discretion and link anything that a reader might want to know more about – for example, all stations mentioned, places like the viaduct, specialist terminology like cross-platform interchange, and so on.

I'll find some time tomorrow to read through it all, or at least a substantial chunk of it, and will get back to you. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More apologies, I'm afraid. I can't spare much time for WP at present but I do hope to get fully back on board again soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't blame yourself. In fact, I need to applaud your dedication on this project as I am really honoured that I have such a good review on my hard work. You can safely take your time to settle urgent issues :D Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On hold again

I'm happy now with coverage, linkage and listing so I've checked those in the criteria above. There is one problem remaining in that the article contains a large number of quotes and we need all of them, without exception, to carry a citation at the end of the sentence in which the quote is used. I realise that in many cases a citation further on is the one verifying the quote but it needs to be repeated if necessary so that it is directly attributed to the quote. For example, "the first sod" in the Heathrow section. Besides this, with eventual FAC nomination in mind, you need to work through the whole article to ensure that each paragraph contains sufficient citations, even where the same one covers the whole paragraph. You particularly need to watch for instances where a sentence contains anything like an opinion, a point of view or any form of paraphrase because these should be directly cited to satisfy FAC scrutiny. You're using the sfn template anyway and it doesn't matter how many times the same reference is repeated.

I'll leave that with you but, as you can see from the criteria, this is nearly there now. It's still on hold, ostensibly for seven days but I don't do deadlines so take your time. Thanks for your good work in the last week or so. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments from DavidCane

Back with a few more comments:

Route

I have amended the description of the route from Hounslow West to Heathrow. The bridge over the River Crane is very small with the tracks running on the surface. It also read as if the tracks went into tube tunnels after the river section, but this happens west of Hatton Cross. I'm using Desmond Croome's "The Piccadilly line: An Illustrated History", so you'll need to check whether the links to Horne are still relevant.
Distances: As RedRose64 says above the tube is measured in kilometres. A good reference for distances is Clive's UndergrounD Line Guides, which has Layout and distance diagrams for all the lines. The distance from Uxbridge to Cockfosters works out using the diagrams as 50.99 km which is 31.68 miles. If rounded to one decimal place this would be 51 km and 31.7 miles. You can use CULG here as a source. It has previously been accepted on my featured articles here, here, here, here and here.

History (Again)

It is dealt with in the later detail, but I think it would be useful to say near the beginning that the Piccadilly line runs over tracks built by three companies: The GNP&BR, the District Railway, the Metropolitan Railway, with later extensions during the 1930s and 1970s onwards.
Added, hope this helps. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westward Extension

"This prompted the Piccadilly line extension to be an express service between Hammersmith and Acton Town, with the future Heathrow Airport extension kept in mind". When is this "kept in mind" supposed to be? The Piccadilly line was extended in the 1930s, but Heathrow Airport didn't exist at that time, being just a small Aerodrome which wouldn't have warranted a railway line. London Airport at the time was in Croydon.
Done. Horne's book states 40 years. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"in conjunction with permit renewal for the extension". This needs a bit of expansion to explain that the parliamentary permissions for rail projects had time limits on them and needed to be renewed if they had not bee carried out.
Dear David, I am cracking my head trying to find sources for this, or am I missing the point? I also tried sifting for how to describe this and referred to some of your articles such as the GNP&BR one but am a bit lost on how to execute this. Thoughts? Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Richmond extension never happened, but provisions allocated would allow this option to be revisited later." This is unsourced. I'm not aware of any plans to take the Piccadilly to Richmond. Though the earlier Central London Railway scheme had planned that.
Sorry for the vague inline citations including this one. I have added Horne's 2007 book as a citation, which is where I got this from. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extension to Cockfosters

You describes the section from Wood Green to Finsbury Park as "this short section". It wasn't that short; about the same distance as from Finsbury Park to King's Cross or Holborn to Brompton Road - 2.5 miles.
"was later dropped from the GNP&BR proposal in 1902 when the company was taken over". Suggest rewording as "was later dropped when the GN&SR was merged with the B&PCR"
"East Barnet" was one of three early names considered for Oakwood station, though it opened as "Enfield West". It might be better to use that name instead and, perhaps, mention East Barnet and the other two alternatives "Merryhill" and "Oakwood" in a note.
All done. Regarding the first, yes I do agree with you. I probably miscommunicated my definition of short since it was in regards to that planned section of the line to Hammersmith but you have a point. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modernisation, World War II and Victoria line

The two large paragraphs on the Victoria line don't belong here. A mention of the desire to relieve congestion on the central sections of the network and the changes at Finsbury Park could be made, but the rest belongs in the Victoria line article.
- "Route C" which later developed into the Victoria line dates from 1949 and was developed from earlier proposals in earlier plans: "Route 8" in 1946 and "Scheme D" in 1947.
You could mention that Bounds Green station was hit by a German bomb 13 October 1940 which killed a number of people and disrupted services for several weeks.
Done for both. I am not sure if it is concise enough now, would love to hear about this again. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extension to Heathrow Airport

Again, not sure of when you are referring to in the first paragraph of this section, but Southern Railway (does the source say "SR") and South Western Railway didn't exist in the 1950s and 1960s. The first was one of the "Big Four" interwar companies that was nationalised into British Railways in 1948, the second is a modern train operating franchise. In the period leading up to 1967, British Rail, Southern Region (i.e. "SR") would have been the rail operator.
@DavidCane: The problem is yes, Horne's 2007 only mentioned SR spur, and that is it. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit of repetition here about the construction of the cut-and-cover section with what is in the Route section at the top. This bit describes it better.
"The loop was built rapidly, with tunnelling completed in 17 months." Is 17 months "rapid" for the length of tunnel constructed. Compared to what?
"However, its alignment caused some controversy". In what way?
"It was reported that London Underground was unhappy with its location on the site of the old Perry Oaks sludge works which was originally intended for Terminal 4." Unhappy with the proposed site of the station specifically or of the site of the terminal and the station? Why unhappy, ground conditions, route issues? Is there a citation?
Done all amendments. I have trimmed the route section. For controversy, I reworded to say alignment issue instead. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable incidents and events, Aldwych branch closure

You don't mention Aldwych in the first paragraph, so "the branch" needs to be "the Aldwych branch" as it reads as if it was the Piccadilly Circus to City of London extension of 1905 that was considered for extension to Waterloo rather than the Aldwych branch.
The bit about the Aldwych branch extension to Waterloo is muddled up with bits about the Jubilee line extension to the City:
- "...and in August 1965, parliamentary powers were granted. Detailed planning took place, although public spending cuts led to postponement of the scheme in 1967 before tenders were invited.". This is talking about the Aldwych branch extension to Waterloo, sourced form Connor (I know, because I wrote the Aldwych article).
- "By 1979, the cost was estimated as £325 million, a six-fold increase from the £51 million estimated in 1970." The £325 million is the cost of the phase 2 extension of the Jubilee line, not the extension of the Aldwych branch. I can't find a figure of £51 million on page 35 of Horne. There it says the cost of the Fleet line, as it then was, as a whole (all the way to Lewisham) was estimated to be £86m in 1970 and for phase 1 just to Aldwych was estimated in 1971 to be £35 million. I'm assuming you're taking one from the other to get the £51 million. However, it is irrelevant to the Piccadilly line.
- The last couple of sentences of this paragraph are about the Jubilee line and do not belong here.
The £3m cost for maintaining Aldwych station was the cost to replace the original lifts in 1993.

--DavidCane (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done all of these amendments and I hope it is in its best form now. Yes, I thought it would have been a good idea to take directly the elements from that article since you are an expert, but I guess I made some oopsies haha. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional comments David. I am currently busy but I should be able to get to this this weekend when I have a break :D Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, there may be some more coming.--DavidCane (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still on hold

I'm afraid that my availability is a problem now and with work on the article still in progress, it looks as if the review might have to remain on hold for an indefinite period. I think the best thing to do is for Vincent, David and Redrose64 to agree when it is ready for final review and then message me. I'll come back to it when I can. If, however, there is a view that the review should be set aside and renominated at a later date, please let me know and I'll do the necessary. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet More Comments from DavidCane

Services

"Journey times on the Piccadilly line are usually around an hour and a half." Need to state between where and where Uxbridge and Cockfosters, Terminal 5 and Cockfosters?
"The busiest section, as of 2016, is between King's Cross St. Pancras and Russell Square." Busiest in terms of number of trains in a given period or the most passengers? If the former, what makes these two adjacent stations busier than others in the central area?
"Pairs of stations were the norm, such as Holloway Road and York Road, and Caledonian Road and Gillespie Road" This isn't clear and could mean that pairs of stations were skipped or one in a pair was skipped. Desmond Croome (The Piccadilly line - An Illustrated History, 1998, p. 43) says alternate trains operated different skip-stop patterns swapping between the skipped stations, with the skipped stations on the first train being Gloucester Road, Hyde Park Corner, Covent Garden, York Road and Holloway Road and the skipped stations on the second train being Brompton Road, Down Street, Russell Square, Caledonian Road and Gillespie Road. This was done all day except the early morning and saved 30 seconds for each station skipped (so 2.5 minutes per journey).
You could mention that there was a play titled Passing Brompton Road written by Jevan Brandon-Thomas and performed at the Criterion Theatre in Piccadilly in 1928 (Connor,2001 p.48).
You could mention that the reason for the need to skip some stations is that the Piccadilly line had a number of stations that were close together and some in little used areas.
"This was preferred over an alternate skip-stop service through Bounds Green" This is unclear in the context of the previous sentence as Bounds Green is not between Wood Green and Turnham Green (It is north of Wood Green). Note 20 is also unclear: "Several stations were planned to be closed to improve running times, and Bounds Green would not have been included as a station". In which scenario would this have been, the 30tph or the skip-stop?
Note 21: "During this period, passengers were advised to board District line trains there" Where is "there"? South Ealing?
"When the Piccadilly line shared its storage of trains with the District line at Lillie Bridge Depot". You haven't mentioned the depots yet. So the reader will not know what this is or what period "when" refers to. It might be better to put Infrastructure before services.

--DavidCane (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, since the review is now closed, feel free to leave further comments on my talk page unless it is ok to have additional comments written in here. Thank you very much for all the feedback :D Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

Hello, Vincent, I've decided to pass this review because the additional points being raised are generally matters of detail which are more in the direction of FA or A-class. The article already meets the GA criteria although you need to just tighten up the citations on quotes by placing them immediately after each one, even if it does mean repeating them.

This may surprise you but think of it as a farewell gift. I am quitting the site. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]