Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the London Underground/archive1

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:18, 12 September 2009 [1].

Timeline of the London Underground

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/Timeline of the London Underground/archive1

This timeline provides a chronology of significant events in the history of the development of the London Underground. By containing links to the events listed, it forms a valuable hub for exploring the wider field. DavidCane (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Disclaimer - I added some of these). It's such a sprawling subject that a full list of station openings, renames and closures isn't desirable, and I think the balance here is just about right. Ought it to mention the ending of freight services and the MR spur to Smithfield Market, which played such an important part in making the two systems viable back in pre-automobile days? – iridescent 19:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Station opening dates and name changes are, of course covered by the List of London Underground stations and Closed London Underground stations articles. I've been looking for a closing date for Smithfield goods station and the best I can find so far is sometime in the 1960s. As you say, I think that it's worth mentioning the freight services operated over the London Underground as it's seen purely as a passenger network today. I'll continue looking for a Smithfield closure; I suspect it is sometime around the date of the fire which destroyed the Smithfield Poultry Market. --DavidCane (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. The link issue is not a dealbreaker. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) This is an interesting, nicely done article (made a few tweaks to lead, hope you don't mind). I have a few nitpicks:

Could you expand a little (just a sentence or two) on Transport for London? I was a bit confused as to exactly what it was (organization or plan), and it's a bit too important to have to make readers hit the link to find out.
- I've added a bit more explanation in the introduction and expanded the item under 2000. --DavidCane (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation: Need periods after all complete sentences.
- I'll have a go at this tomorrow. --DavidCane (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Blitz: Great picture. Also, "The" should be capitalized (it's not in the image caption).
- Done. --DavidCane (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Parliamentary grants approval for the construction of the Victoria line" Should it be just "Parliament"?
- Thanks for spotting that. It should, of course, be the latter.--DavidCane (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Metro-land" The article says it is a publication, but the link goes to an article about a suburban area.
- The suburban area draws its name from the publication. There is a section on the publication within the Metro-land article which the link now targets directly. --DavidCane (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linking: it's a bit much. Perhaps limit it to one link for each term per section? On the same note, because there are so many links to place names and railway stations / lines / companies, we need to be a little more judicious on everything else. "Escalator" can probably go (the link). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there's heavy and repeated linking. Initially, I only linked on the first mention of each top, but then I came to the view that readers might dip in and out of and would be likely to want to go straight from the list items to the topics mentioned. Therefore, I linked everything. I take the point about non-essential links like escalator and will have a review and cull any unnecessary ones.--DavidCane (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Date formats (in the references) are mixed; some are DMY while others are YYYY-MM-DD. I can fix this easily if you indicate which you want.~~ Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I would prefer all dates to be in the DD-MM-YYYY format and would set it this way except that it seems to be standard for the "Retrieved on" date to be presented in the ISO format, hence publication dates of The Times articles are in DD-MM-YYYY and the retrieved on dates are the ISO format.--DavidCane (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reference dates now all follow the DMY format. I don't think there is any guideline on which format to use, as long as the refs are consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. That looks great.--DavidCane (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)

Comments

Looks good, I could find just a few minor referencing differences which may need fixing:

Ref 70 has McMullan, in references section it's spelt McMullen.
- Fixed. --DavidCane (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 81 has year 1975, in references section the article is 1976.
- Fixed. --DavidCane (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 87 has year 1988, in references section the article is 2008.
- Fixed. --DavidCane (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first book in the references has a origyear but not a year so neither appear.
- Fixed. --DavidCane (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not referencing but is there a reason for the start of the alt text being uncapitalised on the later images?
- No reason at all. Fixed.
- Thanks for spotting those.--DavidCane (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Jpeeling (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, comments resolved, can't find any other issues. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.