Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Underground Electric Railways Company of London/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:50, 15 August 2010 [1].

Underground Electric Railways Company of London

[edit]

Underground Electric Railways Company of London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Established in 1902 by a dodgy American and funded through dodgy financial instruments, the UERL built three tube lines in five years. Over-optimistic passenger estimates and large debts very nearly sent the company bankrupt in its first few years, but, through exceptional leadership, it survived. By the 1920s, it had become the dominant transport organisation in London; controlling most of the underground railways, buses and trams. The operations established by the UERL form the core of today's London Underground and Transport for London. This will be the lead article in a planned featured topic on the UERL (one more to do). DavidCane (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments: Sources look okay. No problems. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Holding companies are inherently dull since they don't actually do much in their own right, but this does a good job in piecing together a fairly complicated narrative while keeping the inevitable alphabet soup of acronyms to a minimum. – iridescent 14:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks.
  • I've added a note above that this will be the lead article for a UERL feautured topic. --DavidCane (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: oh, god. I envy you. Reading about pre-Big Four railways make my head hurt. But anyway:
    • You might want to note in the lede that the lines were the precursors of the Bakerloo, Northern, and Piccadilly lines.
    • "American financier Charles Yerkes..." This sentence, I feel, is hopping over the place. It might need some editing to appear less confusing.
    • "And an MP". You should expand the acronyms on the first instance, but any thereafter is fine either way.
    • Brackets. I don't particularly use them, as they force a break in a reader's mental commentary. They're generally fine for acronyms and conversions, but constructions such as "Speyer & Co. (New York)" could be better as "Speyer & Co. of New York".
    • On that note, conversions from 190x terms to current terms. Define "today".
      • The {{inflation}} template converts to the most recent year in its data set automatically, so, whilst "today" appears a bit vague, it will always be more accurate than stating a fixed year.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah. Well, in that case, seeing as the footnotes are correct, that's okay.
    • In the notes, you can nest references, with the construction <ref>{{#tag:ref|name=name|citation}}</ref>
    • The prose looks fine from my perspective. I recommend a quick prose check anyway: you can tighten the wording in some places substantially. For a random example:
      • "In 1909, having overcome the objections of previously reluctant American investors, the UERL announced a parliamentary bill..."
      • ...can become...
      • "In 1909, the UERL had overcome the objections of previously reluctant American investors and announced a parliamentary bill..."
      • I changed it slightly differently. --DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you haven't already, check out Tony1's prose guides. They're really good. In any case, I'll be happy to support with a few minor changes. Sceptre (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: but I believe the opening sentence is too long and, though grammatically correct, difficult to follow. I suggest a sentence break and slight rearrangement. Thus:- "The Underground Electric Railways Company of London Limited (UERL), known operationally as The Underground for much of its existence, was established in 1902. It was the holding company for the three deep-level "tube"[note 1] underground railway lines opened in London during 1906 and 1907: the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway and the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway." Otherwise, no quarrels with a well-constructed article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done; and thanks. --DavidCane (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Well on the way towards promotion. The prose could be massaged a little. A pity it's been here so long already ...

  1. Is it my screen or eyes? Can anyone else make out the station names on the first map? And the key? I see the hyphen is used in the caption, but not on the map. "Geographic" is opposed to schematic, I guess ... OK. BrEng normally "geographical", but it's acceptable as is.
    Hyphen added in image and I've made most of the station names bigger.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "A policy of expansion by acquisition was followed during the years before World War I,"—same sense if you remove "during the years"?
    Dealt with.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "This eventually led to the establishment of the London Passenger Transport Board in 1933"—if you give us the year, please remove the other temporal item.
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You're a dense comma user, and mostly I can cope with it. But here it's too much, don't you think? "Its early success had resulted in a rush of proposals to Parliament for other deep-level routes under the capital, but, by 1901, only two more lines had opened". Two could go for a smoother read. The pressure for a comma after a temporal phrase is greater when it opens a sentence. Do we need "had"?
    I do love a few commas. I've weeded the sentence as suggested.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Of the other companies, construction had started on one and then stopped following a financial crisis, and the rest were struggling to raise funding." So "one" means "lines"? This is awkward.
    I've rephrased. --DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Most readers will find this odd: "sub-surface underground railway". Is there a surface type?
    "Sub-surface" is a technical term used to describe the early tube lines (the Metropolitan Railway and Metropolitan District Railway) which were constructed in a shallow cut and cover tunnel (roofed-over trench). I've added a note explaining this.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "To make itself more competitive,"—become?
    OK.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. To to to: "strong enough to be able to raise the capital to"—remove three words.
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "congestion-relieving" ... gotta have a hyphen.
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yerkes ... I'd link him above in the prose, not the caption (first encounter). It's the other way around at the moment.
    It looks like earlier editing removed the prose link. Now restored.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Unfortunate rhyme, and far too many Yerkes here: "Perks was also a large shareholder in Yerkes' next target, the MDR. By March 1901, the Yerkes syndicate had acquired a controlling interest in the MDR and Yerkes put forward a proposal for its electrification.[8] Yerkes ...".
    Only a visual rhyme, as Yerkes rhymes with Turkeys. but I've made an edit to remove two Yerkes. --DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Jingle: "including constructing"—nominalise it: "including the construction of".
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. "Work had stopped"—again, why "had"?
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • took took

I haven't read further than "Acquisitions". There are a few patterns here. And longish sentences, but it's usually OK (you could sprinkle a few semicolons around). I have a problem with the left/right squashing of the text between close images, and would prefer right-side only. Why not make the 1908 map "center" and much larger. It's useless that the current size, and those with slow download will have to wait for the full res to download. In fact, because it's ginormous, it's either too big or too small for everyone. Needs 400px. Tony (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll have another look for some longish sentences
  • I've made it central and enlarged the 1908 map.
  • I've alternated the images to provide some balance with the Yerkes image which is placed on the left so he looks into the page as recommended.
Thanks for the comments.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Comments. An nicely done article that gives a straightforward treatment to a complicated topic. Some minor comments:

* “Following a public backlash, he sold-up in Chicago…” I assume this means he sold his Chicago-based interests. Is there a less colloquial way to say this?

* “At South Kensington it was to connect to the deep level line planned by the MDR.” This is slightly unclear. Does this mean it was supposed to or that it eventually did?

  • It was planned to at that time and did eventually do so when the line was constructed. The last sentence of the paragraph explains that the two routes wer combined into one. --DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* “…and, unlike his other tube railway purchases, construction work had started in 1898 and substantial progress had been made.” What about this was unlike his other purchases? That construction had actually started? That substantial progress had been made?

* “The UERL was set-up with an initial capitalisation of £5 million…” The link to Market capitalization seems not quite right. Would investment be more accurate?

* Why is Inner Circle italicized? Is this MOS for train lines?

* “…although the arbitrator, Alfred Lyttelton, was critical of the MDR's behavior” This is also unclear. Do you mean the MDR’s decision? Or something else?

  • The manner in which the MDR changed its mind over the method of electrification. Wolmar actually says that Lyttelton "berated the District for the high-handed manner in which the company had treated the issue in simply announcing its intentions on electrification to the Metropolitan." I've extended the sentence slightly.--DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Overlinking: lift, lobbied?

* Should Chicago be linked?

  • I think Chicago is generally sufficiently well-known not to need an explanatory link. --DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the See also links necessary? Could they not be cited in the text of the article?
    I don't see an easy way to link this in the text or that it is advantageous. Both are provided for further information. The list of companies transferred to the LPTB is a long one and the History of public transport authorities in London article is an overview of the whole topic. --DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Underground_Electric_Railways_Company_of_London/archive1&oldid=1078808869"