Talk:Fenchurch Street railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 10:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review shortly. One quick question for now - has the query from the IP editor on the talk page from July been resolved? Miyagawa (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The text in the latest version of the article on the "Goods section" has been changed since then, and there have been no challenges, so I would assume what is there now is stable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Great. I'm aiming to get the review posted by the end of the afternoon. I've picked up five to review, but this is the first on the list. Miyagawa (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• No issues with the images.
• Lead: "The ECR also operated services to relieve congestion at its Bishopsgate terminus." would be better to be more specific - "The ECR also operated services at Fenchurch Street to relieve congestion at its Bishopsgate terminus."

Don't have an issue with that, so fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Location and services: "Formerly run by Network Rail, the station has been served by c2c, owned by National Express since 1996, who have a franchise to run services until 2029." This might need some rephrasing as I got lost in the middle. I get the first two arguments, but then does National Express own the status or c2c, and is it National Express or c2c who have the franchise?

I've reworded this. The C2C customer report saying " National Express was awarded the franchise to continue operating c2c Rail Limited" makes things confusing, but basically c2c is a child company of National Express, and c2c is what you see on the side of trains. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• "corresponding Underground tube connection" I'd change this out so that you don't have to pipe the link (and say Underground tube, which to me is a bit of a repetition). So how about "corresponding connection to the London Underground network."?

I've changed this to "but it does not have a direct link to the London Underground" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• In the services, it might be worthwhile mentioning the Tilbury station since it has the services for the dock and the various cruise ships.

Agreed. A couple of weeks ago, I was at West Ham tube and came across two elderly women who wanted to go to Tilbury for a cruise and hadn't the faintest idea which platform to use. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Nationalisation: I was drawn to the Gorman quote, since it didn't sound right (I thought it might have been "biggest disgraces" or similar) But having read it, she seems to appaud the changes, with the disgrace line referring to how the lines into Fenchurch Street used to be. So this needs to be re-written to place that in the right context. You might also want to quote her on "the misery line" which is a quality soundbyte if ever I heard one. Here's another source for the "misery line" - [1]. There's also some other parliamentary criticism of the station avaliable on Hansard - [2], [3], [4]

Good catch - the following paragraph from Gorman does put things in to a little more context. One of the problems with taking direct quotes from Hansard is knowing the specific context of the debate under which they were formed which invariably involves reading the entire discussion from top to bottom. Anyway, I've moved the Gorman quotation to earlier with an additional news piece that also criticises the line under BR's ownership. Incidentally, while I was looking for sources, I noticed the Northern Line and the East Coast Main Line between Newcastle and Edinburgh have also been dubbed the "misery line" at times. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Cultural references: If you wanted to replace the Douglas Adams cite with something independent, then there's [5], this also mentions a fashion brand named after the station.

Unfortunately that's published by BoD – Books on Demand, which is a self published source. While it could be used as an independent claim for So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish, I don't think it's as good as the original, and I definitely wouldn't use it to cite the fashion brand. After all, if the brand was significant enough to mention in an encyclopedia, surely other sources would have mentioned it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Cite #1: Access date is in a different format to the other dates in the article.

I struggled to find this, but it turns out the archive date is on Template:Citation London station interchange May 2010 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Cite #19: Link Hansard. Or on one of the other Hansard cites if you choose to add them from above.

Linked as suggested Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Cites #57 through #61, plus #63 and #54 need to be filled out fully. At least access dates and source information added.

Looks like reFill didn't work (they were bare URLs, though the information does appear to be in each reference linked to). I'm a little concerned that the list of accidents stops at 1927 and has nothing else - although railways are safer now than 100 years ago, I'd be surprised for there to be no significant incidents at Fenchurch Street in 90 years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick point, I find it's better to describe references rather than refer to them as #1, #2, #3 etc. as the minute a copyedit changes their order, they won't make sense! I think they are as follows:

• 1 - reference named eh to list.english-heritage.org.uk
• 19 - "Rail Commuters (Castle Point)" Hansard transcription
• 57 - 64 inclusive - railwaysarchive.co.uk links Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• That's the lot. Ping me back when you've had a chance to take a look. Placing on hold for the time being. Miyagawa (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: - I've gone through and addressed all the issues one way or another, could you take another look? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Great, I'm happy to promote to GA on that basis. Miyagawa (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. While I'm here, I think I should give an honorary mention to Davidvaughanwells who is a subject expert on the Great Eastern Railway and did much of the work on the pre-nationalisation history of the station in particular. He deserves equal credit for getting the article to GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - its the people who researched and published who are the experts!--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)