Talk:Kennington tube station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 10:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

To my mind this article clearly meets the GA criteria. The following minor drafting points are offered merely for your consideration, and do not at all affect my assessment of the promotability of the article.

• Reconstruction and connection to Hampstead Tube
  • "carried-out" – superfluous hyphen
    • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Post-war plans
  • The war in question is WW2, but there is no mention of it anywhere in the text, and a few readers may wonder which war you mean. If you start the section "After World War II a review…" it would do the trick.
    • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "northern line's tunnels" – shouldn't this be capitalised: Northern line? It might also be worth mentioning in passing, in the appropriate section, that the C&SLR became the Northern line in whenever it was. (I see this is stated in footnote 4, but it would be optimistic to expect that all your readers will read the notes.)
    • It should and done. I've added a sentence about the name to the end of the section on reconstruction and moved part of one of the notes after that.--DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Those are all the preliminary comments I wish to make. I shall have a passing comment about one of the images when I do the formal review, but nothing to frighten the horses. Tim riley talk 10:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Two things I just want to mention 1. The lead is a little short; maybe a sentence on the basic history will fix that. 2. There's not much on contemporary services. From my point of view, the most significant thing about Kennington is if you start at, say, Morden tube station and want to get to Waterloo, you have to change at Kennington off-peak as trains only go the full distance via Bank. So it has some significance as an interchange. I'm not sure if this is a reliable source but it mentions that times to wait when changing at Kennington are not long. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

All comments are welcome. I've added a bit more to the lead and a bit about the need to change at Kennington for the Charing Cross branch outside of peak hours. I've used the timetable on the TfL website as a source. It can only show direct journeys so it will show the times of day when it is not possible to go directly between Oval and Waterloo for example.--DavidCane (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about including too much detail about day-to-day operations, because of MOS:DATED, but you know much better than I do what is appropriate here. As to the lead, I hate writing the things and I am never confident that I have the right balance between comprehensiveness and verbosity. By chance this is the second GAN in a row I've reviewed that had a lightweight lead. In both cases they seemed to me to meet the essential criterion: an overview of the topic covering the main points. Nonetheless the addition to the lead here is very welcome. One more read-through and I hope to conclude the review later today. Tim riley talk 10:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I try to limit the information that can go out of date by giving approximate train spacings and typical first and last services. Over the years this has satisfied reviewers who want the specifics, without there being too much chance of the facts changing widely. I once had a reviewer insist that the types of trains serving the station must be listed, which I included to satisfy them, though in my opinion, this is something more relevant to an article about the line than one about a station.

Some articles warrant a largish lead, but I don't see the benefit of packing them with too much information as it can make the article feel repetitive.I prefer to give enough to interest the reader, without burdening them with too much complexity - sort of like an executive summary.--DavidCane (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I enjoyed this article and am glad to have the pleasure of promoting it to GA. Tim riley talk 12:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. That's my 21st Good Article. I may pop this one in at DYK if I can think of an interesting hook.--DavidCane (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@DavidCane: maybe you can make a hook on the extension to Battersea? 1.02 editor (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)