Wikipedia:Peer review/Victoria line/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Victoria line[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent some time improving it, and wish to see how it can be improved further. I'm especially interested in comments on clarity and similar aspects.

Many Thanks, Backreach (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdwardH comments[edit]

Comments on prose:

  • In the lede, the sentence " ... it runs entirely below ground; however, the connection between Seven Sisters and the line's depot ... leaves the tunnel" sounds like a contradiction. Consider replacing the second part with something like: "... it runs entirely below ground, excluding the connection between Seven Sisters and the line's aboveground depot."
  • If possible, try to maintain a chronological order in the History section. For example, the construction of the Brixton extension is confusingly mentioned before its approval by parliament.
  • You might want to tone down the flowery sentence: "Particularly significant is the direct same-level interchange with the Bakerloo line at Oxford Circus, a pivotal node at the heart of the whole network, facilitating a wide range of north-south journeys across central London." Isn't that also true for several stations on the Victoria Line, e.g. Euston, King's Cross and Victoria?
  • The Opening section needs more references and may be better merged into the History section.
  • Historical information in the Service and rolling stock section could also be moved into the History section.
  • Could you clarify "39+1⁄2 eight-car trains"? Does it mean 39 eight-car trains and one four-car train?
  • What is "squadron service"?
  • In the Stations section, it's clearer to say "Victoria line service began on ...".
  • In the Stations section, the punctuation in the Additional information column is inconsistent. It might be better in bullet points.
  • Clarify that permission was granted for a shaft on Ferry Lane, rather than Ferry Lane itself.
  • There are two citation needed tags dating from 2011. If there is no hope for a source being found for them, the text they apply to should be deleted.

If you want to improve the style and content further, I strongly suggest you look at Hammersmith & City line (good article) and Metropolitan Railway (featured article).

Comments unrelated to prose:

  • Use an unspaced en-dash to mean "to". I.e., Walthamstow–Victoria, not Walthamstow-Victoria or Walthamstow – Victoria. See MOS:ENDASH for more details.
  • Images are missing alt-text.
  • Some are the references are deadlinks.
  • Some references are raw urls which would be better in a {{cite web}} template.
  • There are template errors in the "LU Performance Data Almanac" and Hansard references.

I hope these comments help. Good luck on improving the article! EdwardH (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I will take these comments on board when improving the article. Backreach (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EdwardH: regarding "39+1⁄2 eight-car trains" - reliable sources for LU rolling stock enumerate the various line fleets in terms of full-length trains, and any odd unit is reckoned as half a train. The 1967 stock as built comprised 316 cars - 158 motors and 158 trailers, sufficient to form 79 completely interchangeable four-car units; for service, two units would be coupled to form an eight-car train. Four-car trains could be run, but this was not normally done. The odd "half train" wasn't designated as one specific unit, because of the rolling maintenance schedule: in the 1980s, 33 trains were needed for the normal peak-time service, with the other 6+1⁄2 trains undergoing maintenance of some description - those receiving overhaul would have been split into the individual cars, so there was rarely an actual four-car train that could be used as such. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

The main points outlined in the peer review by EdwardH are as follows:

  • In the lede, the sentence " ... it runs entirely below ground; however, the connection between Seven Sisters and the line's depot ... leaves the tunnel" sounds like a contradiction. Consider replacing the second part with something like: "... it runs entirely below ground, excluding the connection between Seven Sisters and the line's aboveground depot."
 Done--Backreach (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, try to maintain a chronological order in the History section. For example, the construction of the Brixton extension is confusingly mentioned before its approval by parliament.
 Done Backreach (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to tone down the flowery sentence: "Particularly significant is the direct same-level interchange with the Bakerloo line at Oxford Circus, a pivotal node at the heart of the whole network, facilitating a wide range of north-south journeys across central London." Isn't that also true for several stations on the Victoria Line, e.g. Euston, King's Cross and Victoria?
 Done--Backreach (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Opening section needs more references and may be better merged into the History section.
 Done (Not by me though) Backreach (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical information in the Service and rolling stock section could also be moved into the History section.
  • Could you clarify "39+1⁄2 eight-car trains"? Does it mean 39 eight-car trains and one four-car train?
  • What is "squadron service"?
 Done--Backreach (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Stations section, it's clearer to say "Victoria line service began on ...".
 Done--Backreach (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Stations section, the punctuation in the Additional information column is inconsistent. It might be better in bullet points.
 Done--Backreach (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify that permission was granted for a shaft on Ferry Lane, rather than Ferry Lane itself.
 Done Backreach (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two citation needed tags dating from 2011. If there is no hope for a source being found for them, the text they apply to should be deleted.
 Done Backreach (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to improve the style and content further, I strongly suggest you look at Hammersmith & City line (good article) and Metropolitan Railway (featured article).

Comments unrelated to prose:

  • Use an unspaced en-dash to mean "to". I.e., Walthamstow–Victoria, not Walthamstow-Victoria or Walthamstow – Victoria. See MOS:ENDASH for more details.
 Done Backreach (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are missing alt-text.
  • Some are the references are deadlinks.
  • Some references are raw urls which would be better in a {{cite web}} template.
  • There are template errors in the "LU Performance Data Almanac" and Hansard references.
 Done Backreach (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backreach (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions. One, why have you selectively copied the peer review? It's linked at the top of the page, but you could have transcluded it here. Two, regarding alt text: I notice that in this edit, there are several cases where you have set the alt text to be exactly the same as the caption. There is no point in doing this, since screen reader software reads out both alt text and caption, so the same text will be read out twice. It is also not the purpose of alt text to replace the caption, but to describe the image in such a way that those who cannot see the image will know what it depicts. See WP:ALTTEXT for more information. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I copied it as I thought you weren't meant to modify the peer review comments, and I wanted to keep a checklist of what I need to accomplish on the page. And thanks for the comments about the alt text, I'll fix that soon. Backreach (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well... it was you who closed it. You could have kept it open for a bit, popping in those {{done}} as and when - or explained why it was done the way it was, exchanging feedback with the peer-reviewer. This is common practice at a WP:GAN - see e.g. Talk:Down Street tube station/GA1. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Victoria_line/archive1&oldid=739856302"