Talk:Sea Mills railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 10:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to review this.

Lead

The lead is a little bit short - I think you want two short paragraphs for an article of this size. I'd add some of the station's history.
Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It is 6 miles (9.7 km) from Bristol Temple Meads" - rather than a distance, I think the lead should say roughly where it is from Bristol, and possibly mention it being next to the Avon Gorge, and also on the historic site of Abonae.
Done I think that distances are important, but I have added a bit more detail. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and very little in the way of passenger facilities" - in whose opinion are the facilities "very little". This can probably be left out of the lead.
Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Description

"Sea Mills railway station" - "The station" should suffice here, we know which station the article's talking about
Done I felt it worked a bit better in full, but if you think so. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"6 miles 0 chains" .. "7 miles 43 chains" - while I know a chain is 1/80 of a mile, not everyone will, so I think expressing distances in fractions of miles is better ie : "about 6 miles" and "about 7½ miles"
It is stated in miles and chains because that is how the railway is measured. There is a conversion to km for a less obtuse measurement, but "about 6 miles" would be a significant loss of information. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be worth adding as a footnote, as it won't be obvious to just somebody who chances across the article.

Done -mattbuck (Talk) 23:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The next station towards Temple Meads is Clifton Down," - I think a semicolon rather than a comma is the most appropriate thing to use here
Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The station is on an alignment of 158 degrees, curving towards the south" - how did you work this out from the OS map?
Well, technically I used Google Earth aerial photography, but OS maps are used for orienteering so it is certainly possible to get this information from it. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you know it's not 157 degrees or 159 degrees? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Changed to "approximately 160". -mattbuck (Talk) 23:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Bristol Railway Stations 1840–2005" - this book citation needs a page number
Done -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The nearest bus stops are 300 metres (330 yd) away on the A4 Portway." - I can see a map on the source given, but nothing to indicate that the distance is 300 metres
The PDF has two maps - the wider area one has a scale, the closer area one does not but distances can be interpreted using the larger map. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Route 13 Great Western Main Line source needs a page number. Specifically, I can't work out where "The line handles less than 5 million train tonnes per year, has a loading gauge of W6 and a route availability of 7" is cited
Done, though as the PDF pages are not the same as the report pages I just cited the figure numbers. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More later.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Services

The source stating that services now use a Class 150 also say the top speed is now 75mph, that might be worth adding somewhere
Not really relevant, the timings haven't changed significantly since the 150s became the main unit, and I don't think a train would reach anywhere near 75 on the SBL service. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Monday to Friday" - should that be "On Monday to Friday"?
Done -mattbuck (Talk) 22:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is rather a lot of prose cited to the timetable in the first paragraph - is it all necessary?
See next comment.
The second paragraph doesn't actually seem to be anything to do with this station per se
Well, it details the services which use the station, the time taken to the line's main termini, and how much it would cost. I think this is relevant information. After all there wouldn't be much point in having a station if no trains stopped (see Pilning). -mattbuck (Talk) 22:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

The citation for the first paragraph needs a page number(s) (also a problem further on in the history section)
I'll get to this and the one below tomorrow - I have all my railway books at work for when I'm bored. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done
Do we know why a station was specifically planned here? In 1865, I can't imagine there was much in the area as the Portway was unbuilt, the Clifton Suspension Bridge was brand new, and the gorge was mainly a shipping channel for Bristol.
The books I have don't actually say why particular places had stations. I can only imagine that Sea Mills was a village at the time. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
when the deep water channel the terminal pier was built on silted up - this doesn't appear to be grammatically correct
Done Reworded. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The stationmaster is recorded as having kept a variety of farm animals and sold eggs to passengers." - is this important to mention?
Well two different books noted it, references MaggsBPRP and Oakley; though I suspect Oakley got it from Maggs. Probably not important but added a bit of colour. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Increased levels of traffic saw the line through Sea Mills doubled" - "doubled" could wikilink to Double track
Done -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"construction of the A4 Bristol Portway" - the Portway opened as the A36, not the A4. source. I'd just say "Bristol Portway" (although most people would, quite reasonably, assume it has always been the A4).
Done I did not know that. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"By 1947, just before the start of the British Rail era" - might be better to say "just before Nationalisation" (with wikilink - this would then affect the linking on the next paragraph)
Done -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a redlink to Platform 5? Is that the book's publisher?
Yes. They're a fairly major UK rail publisher, I leave it redlinked in hope someone will create an article. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know why the station survived the Beeching report in 1963?
Beeching wanted to do away with the whole line - a more thorough history can be seen at Severn Beach Line#British Rail. Costs were cut (no staff, line singled), and it was considered that closing the line would result in too much hardship. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The station building was sold, and in 2005 was being used by an engineering firm" - do we know what it's being used for now?
Well whenever this was taken it was for sale. I think when I was there in 09/10 it was a lawyer's. [1] seems to indicate it was a charity in 2006, but it seems unlikely that they fill the entire building, and I'm not sure they exist anymore - their website is now dead certainly. I think it's probably best to leave it with the Oakley reference. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future

Some of this section seems to be more to do with the Severn Beach Line generally, rather than this specific station
I agree, but it seems relevant. It's not meant as an in-depth look, but a more general view. I've reworded it a bit.
"The scheme was given the go-ahead in July 2012 as part of the City Deal" - which scheme is this? Reopening the Henbury Loop Line? And what is the situation of the project now?
Done I've reworded it a bit. -mattbuck (Talk)

Images

No problem with image copyrights (I see one photo you took yourself - nice)
I try not to use all my own images in these things, though it would be easier. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The images could do with being left / right juxtaposed - on my monitor (1280x1024) they are all cramped to the right of the screen. Right-aligned images don't appear until after the infobox, so one carefully positioned left-aligned image can help break up the aesthetic layout to make reading text easier. Also File:Sea Mills dock wall and bridge.jpg isn't actually a picture of the station, so it could be removed to free up space.
They're technically not right-aligned, they're unspecified-aligned. I'm viewing at 1920*1200 and they all fit in the space above references, I'll spread them out a bit so they ought to look better on lower resolution. I quite like having File:Sea Mills dock wall and bridge.jpg as it gives a bit of context for the station, as well as it being one of the first photos I nominated which was promoted to quality image status. I don't think that left/right align is a good idea as WP:MOSIM says to avoid sandwiching text between an infobox and image, and at least on this screen you'd have to reach the 2nd paragraph of History before you could put an image on the left. This is an article which is comparatively heavy on pictures, rather than one with reams of text and only a few images. In those putting left/right makes sense to break it up a bit, but I don't think this article is long enough for that. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think the alignment is particularly effective, I'm afraid, and I don't have any 1920x1200 screen to try them out on. Remember that people will be looking at articles increasingly through a mobile or tablet, maybe using the Wikipedia IOS app, for example. Let me ping @Crisco 1492:, who has had a lot of experience with images, who may be able to advise further. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm supposed to have a look at the image balance, getting the infobox in order might be a priority... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492:

Done, see this rollback. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I agree that there's a little balance issue with the images near the table. Three there, but a lot of places without images, rather unbalances the article. The FGW 150 image could, theoretically, be in the "Future" section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

This is a thorough but concise article that explains everything important about the station, so I'm happy to put the review on hold now, pending resolution of these issues. I'll address the above points you've already raised soon, I hope. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you, but I think we're nearly there now - just a few points to clear up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To try and resolve the logjam, I've redone the images so they are more spaced out. With that, I'm now happy to pass the review. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]