Talk:Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 15:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and return to the lead at the end. Can I suggest that you mark any issues fixed with comments or maybe the  Done template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text difficult to read at a later date, and it is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

History

•  Done I have read and re-read this article, and the other article about Paddington tube station, to try to understand what is going on. I think what is lacking is a good general overview, which would provide the context for the details as described. I suggest it needs to be chronological, so I would start with Paddington (Bishops Road), which opened on 10 January 1863. Next would be the fact that two Acts of Parliament were passed on 29 July 1864, with a view to creating the Inner Circle. One was the Metropolitan extension, southwards from Paddington to South Kensington (and the bit to Tower Hill at the other end), while the second was for the District Railway, to provide the southern part of the cirlce. The South Kensington extension needed to turn south from a junction before Bishops Road, and hence the need for a second station. It might also be worth noting that the station was served by standard gauge tracks, since Bishops Road was dual gauge, and that the Circle line was not completed until 1882.
  • I've expanded the first paragraph of the sub-surface section to give more details about the reason for the extension. To avoid overloading the text with secondary information, some of this is included in notes. The GWR only every ran broad gauge trains between Hammersmith and Moorgate. According to Day & Reed there were no mixed gauge tracks on the extension to Gloucester Road.--DavidCane (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sub-surface station

• Services were provided by both the MR and the DR... Suggest this would be more readable if MR was replaced by Metropolitan, and DR by District, here and elsewhere.
•  Done reconstructed to a design by the MR's architect Charles W Clark in 1914 clad in white faïence blocks. The "clad in white faïence blocks" clause does not quite work. Suggest "...in 1914, featuring a cladding of white faïence blocks." or similar.
  • I'm not clear what it is that does not work about the current wording, but I've changed it to something similar to your suggestion.--DavidCane (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Done From 1 November 1926, the MR provided all Inner Circle services and the DR services on the west side of the circular route terminated at Edgware Road using two platforms that had been constructed by the MR for an abandoned plan for a new route between Edgware Road and Finchley Road. This is a very long sentence, and needs splitting in two, or at least some punctuation adding.
  • I've broken it into two parts.--DavidCane (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• From 1 November 1926, Is this date correct? Glover states that the Metropolitan initially provided all of the outer rail trains and some of the inner rail trains on the Circle, but from 1907 took over the whole service provision.
  • Rose says "Both companies originally ran over each other's tracks from the outset and when the Circle was completed both ran its trains all the way round. The District trains were replaced by those of the Metropolitan between November 1907 and October 1908 and were finally replaced from 31.10.1926." My reading of this is that the November 1907 to October 1908 replacement was temporary, possibly to do with the electrification of the Inner Circle happening about this time. "The District Line" by Mike Horne discusses that in 1925 out of 16 trains operating the Inner Circle service four were being provided by the District. The change in 1926 probably occurred after the reconstruction of Edgware Road by the MR with additional platforms.--DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

    Wrong timeframe, there was no more electrification work to be carried out on the District by somewhat earlier than 1907 (Rose does not give electrification dates). The Inner Circle was one of the first portions to be electrified, and the full (jointly-operated) electric service on that route began 24 September 1905 although there had been a limited service since 1 June 1905.

    • Croome, Desmond F. (2003). The Circle Line: An Illustrated History. Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. pp. 32–33. ISBN 1-85414-267-4.

    may be of assistance here. It notes that between those dates the whole Circle service was provided by the Metropolitan, using 4-car electric trains, but the reason for the suspension of the District's trains (which had shared the service with those of the Met, and would do so again afterward) is not clear. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Done From 1949, the Circle line was identified separately, replacing the Metropolitan line service. I think this needs expanding a little, to make it clearer. Presumably, it was identified separately on Beck's 1949 edition of the LT map.
  • Clarified.--DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Done On 30 October 1883, a bomb planted by Fenians... Needs a little context. Suggest "On 30 October 1883, a bomb planted by Fenians campaigning for an independent Irish Republic..." or similar.
  • Text added as suggested.--DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• I think something on changes of ownership would be helpful. The Metropolitan and District seem to have been bitter rivals through most of their history, but both became part of the LPTB in 1933, while in 1948, the nationalisation of the railways resulted in the formation of the LTE and another change of control.
  • I don't think that a discussion on the ownership of the station adds much to the article and the historic development of the BS&WR and MR to TFL via the UERL, LER, LPTB, LTE, LTB, LTE and LRT is not really suitable for this article.--DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Deep level station

• Unlike most previous B&SWR stations, This would read better at Bakerloo, particularly since they had been marketing themselves as the Bakerloo Railway since 1907. (I also suspect that the B&SWR should be the BS&WR, here and previously.)
  • When writing in a historical context such as this, I prefer to use the original company names/contemporary names to distinguish it from more contemporary events. This is the method used on other of my GAs for tube stations.--DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The B&SWR abbreviation is a typo and has been fixed.--DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• provides access to the below ground ticket hall. "below ground" does not work well as a compound adjective, and should be hyphenated if it is so used, but underground is a more sensible adjective.
  • I've hyphenated as suggested. I've used "below ground" rather than "underground" to make it clear that the ticket hall is beneath the ground and to avoid ambiguity where "underground" could mean either that or a more general reference to the London Underground as a whole.--DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Arrangement

•  Done The ... ticket halls are linked via the ticket hall under the main line station, but not directly. It is not obvious what the final phrase refers to. Suggest "There is no direct link between the sub-surface station and the deep-level station ticket halls, although both are linked to the ticket hall under the main line station." if that is the meaning.
  • I've reworded to say "but not to each other directly." which was the intended meaning.--DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Done While this mentions the ticket halls, there is no mention of the platforms. There are two sub-surface platforms, arranged as side platforms with the tracks between them. The deep level station is effectively an island platform, with the tracks outside of the two platforms. There is also a crossover to the north-west of these platforms. What about decor? The Bakerloo platforms include murals of machinery, including Marc Brunel's tunnelling shield.
  • Text added.--DavidCane (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Done There is also no mention of the £6M redevelopment in 1984-87, when a new ticket hall was constructed, and the old one rebuilt.
  • I couldn't find a source on the cost of the redevelopment, but I have added some text with references on what was done.--DavidCane (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

     Done If you do want a ref for the £6M, there is one in Lawrence, David (1994). Underground Architecture. Capital Transport. p. 181. ISBN 978-1-85414-160-6.. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

    Added. Thanks. Missed this before because the edit slipped in between two of my own.--DavidCane (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Services

• The station is in London Fare Zone 1 between Bayswater and Edgware Road stations on the Circle and District lines and between Warwick Avenue and Edgware Road on the Bakerloo line. What does this actually mean? If you follow the link to London Fare Zone 1, then all of the Circle line is in Fare Zone 1, and this appears to be current from a quick trawl of the net.
  • It is a standard requirement for our tube station articles to list the stations on each side for each line and the fare zone(s) the station is in.--DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

     Done It may be a standard requirement to list this information, but it still needs to be understandable to the general reader, and I am not convinced that it is in its present form. It reads like Fare Zone 1 ends at Bayswater and Edgware Road. Warwick Avenue is in Fare Zone 2. How about "The station is between Bayswater and Edgware Road stations on the Circle and District lines and between Warwick Avenue and Edgware Road on the Bakerloo line. It is in London Fare Zone 1, as is all of the Circle Line, and most of the Bakerloo Line to the east of Paddington." This gives it some context. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

    Thanks, I see the issue now. It was a simple fix to split the sentence. The section of the circle line between Hammersmith and the other Paddington tube station is in zone 2.--DavidCane (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Train frequencies vary throughout the day ... The following clauses do not quite make sense. Suggest "...Circle line trains run every 10 minutes..." and "District line trains, which operate every 10 minutes..." or similar.
  • There were a couple of words missing, which have been inserted.--DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Connections

• London Buses routes 7, 23, 27, 36, 205, 332 ... This is a single sentence paragraph. Some details of where the buses run between would provide interest and context.
  • The project deliberately does not list where buses run to avoid this section filling up with overly detailed tables of destinations and bus timetables.--DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

    I have not suggested that you need timetables. I have suggested that you need some way to turn a meaningless list of numbers into information that people might like to read. At the moment, the reader has no way of knowing if the buses serve really local destinations, like Warwick Avenue and Edgware Road, or whether they serve far away places, like Buckingham and Reading. If it is worth mentioning the bus routes that call at the station, it is also worth mentioning where those buses go. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

    It was agreed some time ago (following a series of events where one person would add route numbers, another would add places on the routes, a third would add the days of the week (even times of day) when they ran - then it got silly with names of the bus companies, the manufacturers and types of buses and even which depots they were based at) that since railway station articles are about railway stations and not about buses, the amount of bus information should be minimal, although we didn't go to the extreme of nothing at all. But to put this in the context of your point about places served: few bus routes have only one destination, so listing all the places which may be reached may give undue weight to the buses. However, it is considered acceptable (see for instance Herne Hill railway station#Connections - a featured article) to give all the route numbers of buses which serve the station, and these may be linked: in some cases an article exists (such as London Buses route 7), and in most other cases a redirect exists to a list article about bus routes (such as London Buses route 205). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• ...Marylebone mainline station [is] within walking distance... It is not obvious why you would walk between Paddington and Marylebone, when both the Circle and the Bakerloo go to Edgware Road, which is much closer. Is there an explanation?
  • Agreed. I wouldn't choose to walk it, but there is a permitted out-of-station interchange between the two stations. This is my speculation, but it is probably because the other Paddington tube station is slightly closer to Marylebone and it may be quicker to walk directly there rather than walk across the mainline station to reach the Bakerloo line platforms and then on to Marylebone via the Bakerloo line. You would have to walk past the Edgware Road stations to get there.--DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Done Note 2: Although the two Paddington Underground stations are only about 400 metres (440 yd) apart geographically, the distance by rail on the Circle line is 20.84 kilometres (12.95 mi). If you want to include a geekish fact like this, without a map to aid understanding, I think it needs to explain that such a journey requires passengers to travel round the entire cirlce line, if reversing at Edgware Road is discounted.
  • Note text amended.--DavidCane (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That is the text reviewed. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

References

• It has not been possible to check all of the references, as some of them are from printed books to which the reviewer does not have access. However, where is has been possible to check the references, all of them adequately support the text as written.

Lead

• The lead should introduce the subject, and summarise the main points of the article. In view of my concerns about the coverage of the article, I am going to defer reviewing it until the coverage has been resolved.

Images

•  Done A couple of the captions could do with a little more information. Does the Circle line station image look towards Bayswater or Edgware Road? The Bakerloo Line entrance should mention that it is on Praed Street.
  • Captions have been expanded.--DavidCane (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The formal bit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am putting the article on hold, although I have not yet reviewed the lead, as its content will be affected by the issues of coverage. At the moment the main failing appears to be the lack of broad coverage. The article should stand on its own, without relying unduly on wikilinks to provide the context to the information presented. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I think that's everything done now.--DavidCane (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@DavidCane: I have added some more discussion to the Servics and Connections sections. I still think we need slightly more context for the article to be "broad in its coverage." I haven't checked the lead yet, but have run out of time tonight. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in attending to this, but I was in the Orkneys, and then family illness intervened. I remain unconvinced by the arguement that because the buses section has been unreasonably extended in some previous articles, there should never be any context for the bus routes mentioned in the connections section. This seems to me to be a case where the project guidelines need to be re-visited. However, I have decided that in this case, I will ignore what I think would be a useful addition to the article, and am awarding it Good Article status. To my mind, the lead is also a little sparse, but I know that issue is particularly subjective, so will not raise that as an issue. Congratulations. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. Hope the family get better soon.--DavidCane (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)