Talk:Moorgate station/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 22:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm working on the '75 tube crash article (in user space), I'll pick this one up. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck to the nominator. If I might make a comment, is there any particular reason for choosing 1950 as the break date in the history section? It doesn't appear anything happened at Moorgate in 1950. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was the name changed from Moorgate Street to Moorgate, which may have been in the Nom's mind, although I'll wait for their explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was more a convenient point to put a break in the text than anything else. I think without it, the “History” section is too long. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept there's a need for a break, I'd just marry that break to some event. For the station articles I write that tends to be the railway nationalisation, though obviously for the tube it might be something different. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the mainline station articles I've worked on are roughly compartmentalised into Railway Mania / late-19th / early-20th redesign (if applicable) - Big Four - BR - Privatisation and beyond; however Moorgate is a bit of a hybrid of tube and local rail, and "1950-present" scans better than "British Rail and Privitisation" in my view. I'm not sure what else to suggest :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First run through: all in pretty good shape and nothing too much to worry about. Some initial comments:

Location

Slightly pedantic, but as it is the opening line of the main text, "The station has entrances on" would probably be better as "Moorgate station has entrances on", although I won't press the point if you demur.

Normally I'd agree - I think the concern here is it means putting "Moorgate" twice in quick succession. Do you still think it's worth going ahead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"While" is not needed and the end part of the sentence doesn't follow well with or without it. "The public entrances from the street give access to all the train services at the station, where there are three distinct levels" could be better

Tweaked Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Circle, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines?

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what "permanent way material" is
AFAIK it means things used to build the railway - spare track, sleepers, and also fences and any other building work needed for the line's upkeep. However, I realise that's far too technical for a layman reader so I've trimmed it down Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The permanent way is the finished track; it's described as "permanent" in order to distinguish it from the roughly-laid temporary way used by the construction contractors. Permanent way materials will include ballast, sleepers, chairs/baseplates, rails and fastenings, but not fences. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Deep level" could be piped to [[London Underground infrastructure#Sub-surface network and deep-level tube lines|deep level]] if you like

Don't see why not Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1861–1950

"two years before the initial section opened, and it opened on 23 December 1865": opened/opened, and it's a little confusing what the "it" refers to.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Euston?

No problem, I'm useless at links Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Under the Crossrail plans," It may be worth including an idea of dates, if they are easy to find

The source had them, so done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents

"the driver's unexplained failure": this sounds like the driver couldn't explain the failure "the unexplained failure of the driver" would remove the confusion.

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May be worth just adding that the wreckage was not cleared until 6 March and the services did not restart until 10 March. It can be sourced to page 2 of the official report

Done. That is a sobering report, far more detail than I've seen about the crash elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Services

There is some overlinking here, which you should check

Should be okay now Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure

"Northern City Line" and the second "traction current" are duplicate links

Got it Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Colour light signals": any reason for the capital C?

I thought it might be specifically for the technical term, but it appears not. I've also defined a few acronyms here to make it sound less technical. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Semi-fast services" Ditto for cap S

That'll be because there was a comma instead of a full stop. Changed slightly. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Harrow-On-The-Hill" should be Harrow-on-the-Hill (x2)

Haven't been out that way for years (oh, and fixed) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's it on the first prose run through. I'll go over it again a little later, and do some of the 'technical' checks then too. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that - I'll have a look over these at some point today or tomorrow, time permitting. I don't have a copy of Day or Jackson on me anymore as they were borrowed from the local library, but as Thursday is late opening I should be able to get hold of them tonight if fact checking is required, provided nobody else has done so. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 'technical' bits

The history shows that as at this version from 16:59, 1 February 2018‎, the article appears to be stable, with no edit warring or involved talk page disputes in the preceding three months.
There are no non-free images used in the article. The free images appear to be correctly licenced. There is no ALT text in place which, while not a requirement, is worth adding (although it won't affect the outcome here). The use in the article of all of them is appropriate: all are in logical sections and the captions are appropriate, although one needs a minor tweak:

"Eastbound/Clockwise Platform 1" should be a lower case P (and possibly E an C, depending on what the convention on the relevant project says regarding capitalisation).

Fixed that - I checked a couple of other London terminal GAs but I can't find another image that has the word "platform" on it, surprisingly. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage seems appropriate for the topic (looking at a couple of other tube station articles, I do not see any major areas where this one is lacking).

Only thing I would say having seen that in-depth HMSO report is maybe the crash could be expanded, but I don't think that's a major issue as we have a separate article for it anyway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the crash article will be much more complete soon (I'm hoping to have it finished in a few weeks). It's a horrifying tale to try and work through dispassionately. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information is appropriately sourced and carries sufficient citations from reliable sources. As far as I can tell (from the position of a non-expert), there is no evidence of original research. The copyvio tool shows only 2.9% likelihood – very low.

Let me know when you've finished with the prose, and I'll give that a second going over to see what I missed first time round. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've had a look at all the issues now, which should be addressed one way or the other. There's that outstanding question of how and where to split the "History" section. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look over and made a couple of miner MoS tweaks myself. Where the break in the history section comes shouldn't hold up this review, and it can be discussed further on the article talk page. To my mind 1950 is a logical place to break, given the change of name, but others may differ as to a better location. Thanks Ritchie for a good article, and to the others for chipping in with an explanation and the history comment - I'm obliged to you all. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]