Talk:Finchley Central tube station/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Mattbuck (talk · contribs) 13:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Full disclosure, I work for Tube Lines, and while this is a potential conflict of interest, I am generally rather picky about stuff, so I am sure I will have suggestions for improvement before GA. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my first thoughts are this is pretty good, but there's a bit of tidying up which needs to be done, and a few things which could do with more information. This article is close to GA, it just needs a bit more. I've added a load of comments below. I know there are a lot, but please don't be disheartened by this. If you could add second level comments to tick off or discuss each one, that would help the final review. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall status[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Few minor alterations needed.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. A few points of information about the current station should be added.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Yay you used one of mine!
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. No changes to article after several weeks of time allowance.

Comments[edit]

Article structure[edit]

While I understand that, from a story-telling point of view, chronological order is sensible, I think that for station articles it's not ideal. I suggest the following order:

  1. Description
  2. Services
  3. History
  4. Future
  5. Notes, references, etc

This puts the most important information - the station as it exists now and what services use it - right at the front. It also means that by the time you get to the history, you can assume that the reader has a rough idea of the station layout, and makes it easier to draw comparisons and explain changes.

The order of sections follows a loose, but reasonably well established order for GA tube station articles. See for example:
I think that there is a benefit it maintaining this arrangement.--DavidCane (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - I had that arrangement for some of my initial railway station GA attempts, and got told what I just told you. I came around to it because if I'm looking at an article about a station, I want to know how it is currently. That is the most important part of a station article, without which the rest of the article is entirely pointless. Those Embankment and South Kensington articles make it even more difficult because you have to wade through 150 years of history and piece it together from that - there's no coherent picture of how the station exists now. I would encourage you to look at articles such as Yatton railway station for example and see how they work better because the history sections can take context from the current station (which is after all what people are familiar with). -mattbuck (Talk) 11:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

  • You use "X station" a lot in the article, for instance "from Finsbury Park station to Edgware station". Unless there's a specific need to highlight something being a station, just say (eg) "from Finsbury Park to Edgware".
  • I'm not a fan of your reference structure. Tooltip references make references which just say "Butt 1995 p. 96" a bit difficult to peruse. Instead I prefer to have all the details contained within the ref tag, with each book only being one reference, and then use {{rp}} in the text if there's a need to refer to a particular page. However, this is one of the accepted reference structures, so if you want to keep it then ok.
    Shortened footnotes is an accepted ref style, as you say; I should point out that {{rp}} whilst accepted by some, is disliked by others - therefore, WP:CITEVAR applies here. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, it's an accepted structure, I just don't like it much. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say I have come across {{rp}} style references very often. Personally I prefer the short footnote style as it makes editing easy, reducing the number of <ref></ref> or <ref name=X/> in the article. It also does not break if someone renames or deletes the "master" reference.--DavidCane (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "group=n" for notes, perhaps "group=note" might be clearer.
    Or try group=lower-alpha which means that they are distinguished by letter rather than being numbered, which can be confused with refs. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used to use "group=note", but started to find it distracting when there are a lot of citations and notes in the article. I changed to "n" to make this as small as possible, but still keep them distinct from the citations.--DavidCane (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never been convinced by lead images being an external picture, I think a platform photo might be better.
    • I think that a lead photograph of the station building is pretty much universal for tube station articles. Possibly because underground tube platforms are not particularly distinctive, whereas the station buildings are.--DavidCane (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will admit there are no compelling photos of the station on Commons, although it is one of the more distinctive stations at platform level. File:Finchley Cenral station 20080722.JPG is the best platform view I could come up with, and is just about the only photo to have been taken in sunlight! Still, it just seems to me that you end up with every article having a photo of a generally fairly dull building, and that's especially bad for the tooltip article previews. Perhaps I should go and take some more photos of the place when it's sunny sometime. Still, this one isn't GA-affecting, just a thought. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see where in the template the entries/exits history comes from, which is a bit weird but I guess that's standard. Can any analysis be done on this - are passenger numbers increasing? A brief note of that in the description section would be good.
    It's an automatic thing that DavidCane (talk · contribs) set up. See {{Tubeexits2011}} etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fancy. Why don't we do that with national rail stations? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It would need a very long {{#switch:}} table. The TfL tube data is set-up as an excel spreadsheet, so I used some basic text trimming and concatenation functions to build the table automatically and then copied it into the template. Once added to the station template I then had to remove or suppress all of the redundant parameters.--DavidCane (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DavidCane: - do you need more time here, or shall I just close this review? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Not sure High Barnet Branch needs a link, especially when you link Northern Line in the same sentence, and it's a subsection of the same article. Not done - already has a link  Done
    The point was that it was linked again and shouldn't be. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, so blur these days. However, I have wikilinked to High Barnet station instead.
  • Add a comma after "East Finchley stations" Done
  • "As part of London Underground's only partially completed Northern Heights plan" is a bit messy, remove the "only partially completed" from the lead, it can be expanded upon later. Done - agree with you

Vincent60030 (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original station[edit]

  • The first paragraph seems a bit rushed, especially the bit about rural Middlesex. I suggest you start with the current first sentence, then explain roughly how big Finchley was at the time (ie a village in rural Middlesex).
  • Add a line break after "Potters Bar and the north".  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording about the opening is a bit confusing, I suggest "The station opened on 22 August 1867 when services to Edgware began. The station was originally known as "Finchley and Hendon", but was renamed as "Finchley" on 1 February 1872, and then as "Finchley (Church End)" on 1 February 1894." The final rename comes outside the purview of this section.
  • "A branch line to High Barnet was constructed by the GNR" is a bit clearer. Possibly note the northerly direction of said branch.  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink High Barnet.  Not done - wikilinked it in the lead instead  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section should be renamed, as from what I understand the station is still the original one. Perhaps "construction and early operations".
  • Do you have any information on GNR services and the architecture?
  • I also suggest adding the chainage to King's Cross.  Done - credits to Mattbuck
    • Chainage? What does that mean? Vincent60030 (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The distance in miles and chains to King's Cross via Finsbury Park. I'll sort this one out. Using [1] and [2], the distance appears to be 7 miles 29 chains (11.8 km). -mattbuck (Talk) 14:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, thanks. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention a freight yard later, any details? Either way, mention it here at the start so it's not such a surprise when it closes.

Northern heights[edit]

  • You never use the acronym LPTB, so no point stating it.  Not done I think it is worth stating it as readers may not know what does the LPTB acronym stand for before reading this. So, there is still a point stating. Vincent60030 (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link East Finchley  Not done already wikilinked earlier  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note that the link to East Finchley is from the south would be handy.
  • Note about final change of name goes here.
  • No need for a comma after 14 April 1940  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remain slightly confused by the exact timeline here. Could you please clarify when the line to Edgware reopened, if at all. I assume it was still LNER-served until their withdrawal, or did they terminate their trains at Finchley Central? Did LU take over the Finsbury Park services after LNER withdrawal?
  • Notes on destinations of Northern Line trains would be nice.

Post-War[edit]

  • The British Rail paragraph could possibly be changed about a bit. Perhaps "LNER freight trains continued to serve the station until nationalised in 1948, when it was subsumed into British Rail. Freight services ended in 1962, after which the goods yard was taken out of use. It is now [whatever was built on top of the goods yard]."
  • Is an exact date for the goods yard closure available?
  • Was the end of freight related to Beeching?
  • The architecture paragraph should come after the first paragraph I think.  Not done the current first two paragraphs are about services, so it is fine to maintain this layout. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting the sentence with Holden and Uren makes it feel like their designs were unsolicited.
  • The road bridge should be named, and it should also be mentioned in the station description.
  • That Finchley central is one of only two original EH&LR station buildings left should be moved into the description section, as should the note on it being one of the oldest parts of the underground. I'd also suggest that that is relevant for the lead.

Station layout (now The station today)[edit]

  • Please expand on this section to include details of where the station is (you talk about it in the lead), including the borough. Also give a brief idea of the (very) local area - is it residential or commercial, etc.
  • You state the entrance is on the north side of the tracks, but that's not too helpful as you've never stated what orientation the tracks are.
  • The comma after Mill Hill East should be a semi-colon.  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trains can terminate at platform 1 - do they reverse there, or do they use a headshunt?  Done - headshunt Vincent60030 (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long are the platforms?
  • How far is the station from principle stations (eg High Barnet and Euston, possibly Morden as well).
    • I think this should be in a new location/description section. Vincent60030 (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree completely - I suggested in the article structure section that the description should be the primary section, giving details of location etc, then the history section can springboard from that. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any shelters? Platform furniture? Next train boards?  Not done - It is not necessary to state these as there are no reliable sources. It also violates what Wikipedia is not as a station guide. =p  Half done Don't think it's necessary to talk about furniture but added departure boards and platform canopies. Might add what type of canopy (GNR) in the future. Vincent60030 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a travel guide, but in an article about a station, I expect information about the station. That includes information on passenger facilities. That is not being a travel guide, it's giving information about the subject. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The station appears to have a car park. I suggest this be mentioned.  Not done - same as above  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentioning that somewhere has a car park is a pretty obvious thing to note. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about ticket barriers, staffing and ticket offices?  Not done - same as above  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Staffing and ticket facilities are not travel guide stuff, especially with the mass removal of ticket offices with the Fit For The Future (Stations) programme. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the above three issues, I would suggest a second opinion from Redrose64. =p Vincent60030 (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC) (I'm rather indecisive in this case, 'cause I'm learning ;) )[reply]
      We can include that the station has these various facilities (see WP:NOTTIMETABLE), but not e.g. the name of the chain that the coffee shop/newsagent belongs to; the number of barriers/benches/car park slots/ticket machines; the name of the person who recorded the automatic announcements. Even the opening hours might be considered unencyclopedic. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not necessarily saying include numbers of barriers (unless that's somehow noteworthy, for instance due to complaints of not enough), but stating that there are some is relevant. Again, don't need to say how many benches/train indicators/ticket machines, but saying they exist is useful. Car parks I'd probably go to the number of spaces as it provides an idea of how people get to the station, but it's not a necessity, and again, it's more relevant if there are complaints about parking availability. I would never have thought to mention automatic announcements, beyond perhaps a note that they are announced automatically. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I see, case solved. Gonna make some improvements. Vincent60030 (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Virgin Media is exactly the sort of thing that isn't encyclopedic. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I see, I have now removed that. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Services and connections[edit]

  • This section could do with expansion. You say trains operate northbound to West Finchley, but I don't think any trains terminate there - they'd all be going to High Barnet. You haven't specified the southbound destinations (usually Kennington via Charing Cross; less frequently to Morden via Bank).
  • I suggest bringing the routebox up into this section.  Not done As seen at every tube station articles, all routeboxes are at the bottom either in the external links or references section ;)  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a discussion at WT:UKRAIL which suggested a mix of opinion on this. To me it makes more sense to have the routebox within the services section. One shouldn't be tied to what other articles have done if it makes for a better article. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note that the Northern Line uses 1995 stock EMUs would be good too.
  • Also note that trains call at all stations
  • I don't think it's necessary to have subsections here.  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A vague idea of where those buses go would be nice. Perhaps expand into a bullet point list.  Done used descriptive form instead Vincent60030 (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references[edit]

  • "xxx in Popular Culture" sections are generally frowned upon, and this one is a little light. I think perhaps put the plaque info into the description section and the game into history.
  • I suggest making "Finchley Central mind game" a single link, as it's quite confusing to see a bluelink to the page you're on!  Done still have two wikilinks but combined 'mind' with the first link Vincent60030 (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  • Note 1 - change the first "with" to "and", comma after Edgware station.

External links[edit]

Infobox[edit]

  • I'd make some minor changes to the significant dates section:
    1. 22 August 1867 - Opened
    2. 14 April 1940 - First Northern line service
    3. 2 March 1941 - Last main line passenger service
    4. 1962 - Closed to goods traffic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Finchley_Central_tube_station/GA1&oldid=967075600"