Talk:Acton Town tube station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 20:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• It looks as though some hard work has been put into preparing this article, so I will be happy to review it for GA.

My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 20:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. :) So have you got any results yet? Vincent60030 (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I've been busy all yesterday. I hope to make a start today. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) @ 10:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Overall comments

The article looks a little unbalanced in terms of content, with a large newly-expanded lead section and every other section only being a paragraph long. I think the info in the lead needs to slide down a little. For references, there seems to be an adequate number at first glance, backed up with some further reading, so the content is largely verifiable. There's only two inline images, so perhaps some other appropriate photographs or diagrams could be inserted. Checklinks reports no dead links and there are no ambiguous links, either. Daily traffic is around 39 views per day, so while not exactly the highest traffic, still worthy of being high quality for those that do read it.

Section analysis

After the review has been conducted, editors addressing the article may mark individual points below off by placing {{done}} after the item.

Lead

Infobox

• Is there anywhere to get the 2014 entry and exit figures? This will help the article to be up to date.  Not done
• There is possibly too many points in the "key dates" section. Could some such as the openings of branches be trimmed off?  Done
• Date of adding to listed buildings list is unreferenced  Done

Lead

• Too much detail and 0 references after the first paragraph.  Done
• " Mr. Clemmence" - This guy is referred to twice in the article and we don't know who he is (no brief explanation, not linked), and people are not usually referred to as "Mr". Also, British English does not include a full stop after the "Mr", although the whole thing needs fixing.  Done removed it instead :p

Location

• References needed on the first three sentences (can be references already used)  Done
• References needed re: Frank Pick House  Done
• This doesn't read correctly: "It is home to one of [...] engineering department."  Done

History

• The caption for the photo, which is too long, could be placed somewhere in the text and made to refer to the photo  Done

South Acton branch

• "Abutment" possibly linked as an uncommon term  Done nvm, changed to support

Station building

• "The initial brick-built station" - not very clear, perhaps try "original" or "first"  Done
• Who is John Wolfe-Barry? Needs a link or brief explanation, as well as Clemmence above  Done
• Is there a photo of the station building? Could you take one? Why not illustrate what you're describing?  Done
• "projecting roundel sign" - needs some way of saying it is the LU roundel, that famous icon  Done
• Can you find a little history of WHY in 1994 it became a listed building? Are there notes available from the time of its designation?  Done

Services

• Picture of a train at the platform?  Done
• "Piccadilly line" section is too precise where it includes times of day; these are subject to change  Done
• "During disruption" to the end of the paragraph is almost verbatim to the source. This nomination will not pass until it is rewritten.  Done

Connections

Does this really need its own section for just one sentence? It could become a subsection of "Services" or something. You could even expand it and talk about where those bus routes go and the connecting road network.  Done

---

No other issues

References

The number of each reference I give is correct as of revision 656105193; if any have been added since then it will have moved numbers.

If there is no comment on a reference assume I have reviewed it and found no problems.

• Ref 1 links to a huge PDF with a confusing format. There must be a better place to source "yes it's accessible"  Done replaced it with another tube guide with a note
• Ref 4 does not support the listed building entry number claim in the infobox  Done
• Ref 7 does not support the claim about the "short fifth platform"  Done replaced with a correct one — haha my mistake
• Ref 8 needs to use {{cite book}} to properly reference The London Compendium, not just say "Glinert 2012" which means nothing  Done
• Ref 11, same as above. What book is "Greathead 1896"?  Done
• And again for Ref 13  Done
• Ref 14 doesn't really support "reduced to a shuttle between Acton Town and South Acton on 15 February 1932."  Done replaced with CULG supporting ref
• Ref 15 (English Heritage) is a dead end  Done
• Ref 16 needs linking to the correct book (Orsini 2010)  Done

If you can put a tick after or strike through any items which have been addressed that would be useful.

Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) @ 19:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

---

I have addressed the problems of refs 8 (Glinert) & 13 (Day & Reed) by small adjustments elsewhere, primarily adding |ref=harv to one {{cite book}} (Glinert) and ensuring that the details of another (Day & Reed) agree with the information in the corresponding {{sfn}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rcsprinter123:@Redrose64:Thanks, Redrose64 and also Rcsprinter123. I don't really get what you mean about the last "services" issue there. Also, isn't the lead section need not necessarily to be referenced since all the contents are referenced under the sections. Also, how do I cut down on the details in the lead?Vincent60030 (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Vincent60030: I would read WP:CITELEAD and let you make your own decisions about it; I won't fail the nomination on this issue.

On the third "services" item:

• Article: During disruption on the District line, Piccadilly line trains have sometimes been used to provide a service to Ealing Broadway, either by diverting some trains bound for Rayners Lane and Uxbridge, or as a shuttle from Acton Town.[7] Trains may also run along the District line tracks from Hammersmith to Acton Town to serve those stations with no platforms on the Piccadilly line.[7]
• Source: During disruption on the District Line, Piccadilly Line trains have sometimes been used to provide a service to Ealing Broadway, either by diverting some trains bound for Rayners Lane and Uxbridge, or as a shuttle from Acton Town. Trains may also run along the District Line tracks from Hammersmith to Acton Town in order to serve those stations with no platforms on the Piccadilly Line.

Copying word for word is not permitted. Is the problem.

Finally, to cut down on lead details, take out non-important events and dates that are better covered solely in the history section. Rcsprinter¹²³ (chew) @ 19:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the wordings and added a note for it and cleaned up the lead. Is the lead now short enough? Also, I couldn't find the 2014 entry and exit figures now. About the term "abutment", it is stated in the ref provided. I have added some more references in the lead section for those sentences or claims that have a high risk of being challenged. Also, about the Greathead ref, I got it from the Central London Railway so I don't know exactly which book is it although I have already searched it on Google books. Vincent60030 (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

So are you saying that although you added the text that is referenced to Greathead, you didn't actually consult Greathead when doing so? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64:@Rcsprinter123: What I meant was that I don't know which book is it and that's it. The sentence was already there when I started editing it and so I just add that reference to it since it's related. Check it here. Vincent60030 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't add a ref that you didn't personally examine, otherwise how do you know that it supports the text that you are placing it against? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Find a new reference to support it (or find what this book is), otherwise the claim may have to be removed. I will try to get to reviewing the remainder of the references tomorrow. Rcsprinter¹²³ (jaw) @ 19:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rcsprinter123:@Redrose64: Good news, I've found the book! Also, all the issues are almost fully addressed with the ref issue fully fixed (maybe) yay! :) Vincent60030 (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@DavidCane: Do you mind if you can help me to find a ref for the Frank Pick House sentence? Also can you help me to find more info about Mr Clemmence? I have asked for help from you since you are good at these areas. Thanks :) Vincent60030 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you use the link in ref 136 of the article I wrote on Frank Pick. This goes to a photo of the sign at the entrance to the building. It was accepted when the article went through the FA candidacy.--DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@DavidCane: Thank you so much for the suggestion. However, did I use it in the correct area? Can you check it from here please? ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rcsprinter123: Btw sorry but I couldn't find anything about Mr Clemmence on the web. :( Also, I couldn't find the 2014 entry and exit figure since TfL has not posted it (so late huh?). So, what are you going to do with the review? :| Vincent60030 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess I can wrap it up later today then. You'll have to remove mention of Clemmence if you don't know who it is. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 15:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll just wait until you have removed Clemmence and then I can promote to GA.

   Thank you so much to all of you! :) I have removed the "Mr Clemmence" statement. Vincent60030 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)