Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charing Cross tube station/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 January 2021 [1].

Charing Cross tube station edit

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of Charing Cross Underground station a station with an interesting developmental history including be combined from two separate stations and the introduction and later withdrawal of platforms for the Jubilee line. DavidCane (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we remove the tooltips usage throughout the article? We generally just use acronyms explained on first usage (which you already do). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can, but there are so many acronyms, many of which are similar, that I thought it would be useful to save readers have to scroll back up to see which is which. What do others think?--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an argument the article should be at Charing Cross (tube station)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to explain acronyms if they are not used again in the lede, such as Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway (CCE&HR). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. I see I've defined it further down when it is first used in the body.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The station was served by the Jubilee line between 1979 and 1999, acting as the southern terminus of the line during that period. The two earlier stations were connected together and given the current name when the Jubilee line opened. - as a non-rail fan, I don't think this explains when Charing Cross became the station it is now, did this happen in 1999? I think this needs better wording. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was in 1979. The two earlier stations were connected below ground with a new passageway and the Jubilee line had escalators which when up to new intermediate concourses.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Planning is uncited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a simple introductory paragraph that leads into all of the following which are cited. I think those individual citations demonstrate this.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • South Eastern Railway's pipes to a redirect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. I started writing this a long time ago and someone moved the page in the interim.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an odd paragraphing structure in this article, quite a few one or two sentence paragraphs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to avoid referring to too many railway companies in a single paragraph to help keep them distinct from one another so there are a few ocassions where the paragraphs are quite short. The alternative led to some very dense long paragraphs which were difficult to follow.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waterloo station, City of London, Cannon Street, West End, Knightsbridge, Aldwych are duplicate links. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • City of London, Cannon Street, West End, Knightsbridge dealt with. I can only find one link to Waterloo station, and one to Aldwych in the text, though Aldwych is linked in the succession box and Aldwych and Waterloo are linked in the navigation boxes.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note "o" is uncited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over 30 notes in this article, are they all necessary? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are quite a few, but I use notes for supplementary information that is not directly needed to tell the history of the station, but which is, nevertheless, still important to explain. It keeps the body text tight without deviation. This is the sort of subject that has a lot of secondary information--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we change the reflist to not change the column widths, {{reflist}} is very clever, and can do this on its own. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK for the notes list, but the short format citation style leaves a lot of white space between the columns without a specified width. A width of 20em means that they fit more compactly together.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the external links is a bit ridiculous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? The links to the London Transport Museum provide a lot of interesting historic photographs of the station throughout it's history that are not readily available by other means. I think these provide a valuable addition to the article. Although old, many of these are previously unpublished so not out of copyright and cannot be used on Wikipedia directly.The Abandoned stations site shows the now closed Jubilee line platforms in operation. The Square wheels site provides a nice illustrative progression of the changing names for the station and the others that changes along with it.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use in media needs some work, why is it important that they have had things shot there? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given their prominence on the London street scene, an "In the media" section is not uncommon on London Underground articles. Particularly where the station is used in films and TV. The closed parks of Green Park and Aldwych tube station both appear regularly as other Underground stations.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit about the music video for cry is uncited. I'm also not sure why it gets more WP:WEIGHT than movies being shot there. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not deliberately given more weight, just that the previous set are all films and television. I could merge this into a single list of film, television and other media. The best way to cite this would be to link to the video on Youtube or Vimeo, but the two versions on Youtube and the version on Vimeo do not appear to be officially sanctioned and we're not allowed to link to them in that case. She left the music business and does not seem to have any official site, but fresh digging did find a citation. Which I have added.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee, have you formed a view on this one yet, or is there more to come? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I've taken a look through the article, and it seems suitable to me. Great job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lee.--DavidCane (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG comments edit

This is odd; how do we determine who the publisher is, and should there not be an accessdate? "Out of Station Interchanges" (XLS). Transport for London. 19 February 2019.

Prose
  • As the Jubilee line platforms and track are still maintained by TfL AS OF DATE NEEDED for operational reasons, they can also be used by film and television makers requiring a modern Underground station location.
  • This section heading is odd since it's not new, it's old ... Proposal for new connection Maybe, 2005 proposal for connection?
    • "New" in the sense that it would be a "new connection" rather than a "new proposal" Changed to "Proposal for connection to Docklands Light Railway".--DavidCane (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent developments could be improved to avoid MOS:CURRENT problem as it becomes dated.
    • Section retitled and information updated now planning decision has been granted.--DavidCane (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, have you formed a view on this one yet, or is there more to come? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for the delay; for some reason, I still can't grok the pingie thingie and lose track of pings.
I am not comfortable with the prose here. There is a lot of WP:PROSELINE; subsequent paragraphs starting with "On date X, Y happened".
Because I'm trying to deal with each proposal separately, which might cover a year or two, I have sometimes had to make specific reference to the year rather than use wording like "the following year" or "the same year". The 1880s section has a number of instances where this was necessary to retain chronology.--DavidCane (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a train person, but there are too many statements that I don't know what they mean, eg, "Tunnelling under the mainline station was done in compressed air to prevent any damage from ground movements."
    • Tunnelling in compressed air prevents water seeping into the tunnel through the open excavation at the front of the tunnelling shield. Where the excavated strata is permeable (e.g. gravel) and water-bearing, this can be a problem and lead to collapse. I have added a note on this.--DavidCane (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are examples were the prose could be more straightforward and less passive voice, such as:
  • In 2016 and 2017, the two ticket halls were separately closed for refurbishment with interior finishes and lighting being replaced and new ticket barriers being installed. --?
  • The two ticket halls were closed on two occasions: in 2016 to replace interior finishes and lighting and in 2017 to install new ticket barriers.
    • That's not what's meant. The ticket halls were closed separately and when closed had all of the works mentioned done in one go, so that the station could stay open. I have rephrased.--DavidCane (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awkward way to start a sentence: 1884 saw the proposal of two cut-and-cover lines to link Charing Cross with one of the northern terminals.
Rephrased.--DavidCane (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The construction of sentences is often awkward: As had the opening of the C&SLR ten years earlier, the successful opening of the CLR in 1900 spurred another set of proposals for new lines with routes criss-crossing London.
Changed a word.--DavidCane (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything worthy of an oppose, but neither can I find the prose warrants a Support, and think independent eyes for a copyedit might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not spotted your additional comments earlier. I've added a note re: tunnelling in compressed air and will review the prose tomorrow.--DavidCane (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Seeing some sandwiching between the images and infobox
    • Running at 100% zoom in the Vector skin, it only seems to be a minor problem at around 1400 pixels wide and then there's only two or three lines where the text is sandwiched between the two and then there are around 50 to 60 characters. Wider than that and narrower, then that the problem goes away.--DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why use div align in captions?
    • When the images were added the caption_align=center parameter did not work properly and the only way I could centre align them was use the div method. It seems to work as intended now. Removed as they are working as planned.--DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the maps would benefit from being scaled up
    • I'd be happy for them to be bigger, but I didn't want to overwhelm the text with them. What width do you think. They should all be the same size. --DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would suggest |upright=1.2. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok. Done for the maps in the planning section. I have had to increase the size of the map in the multi-image box in the 1860s-1870s box manual by multiplying it be 1.2 as the upright function does not work in that template.--DavidCane (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:An_iron_tube_for_the_Waterloo_and_Whitehall_Pnumatic_Railway.png: image description states the image is from an "issue of Scientific American" - what issue, or what date? It also has a tag stating the image is in the public domain because the author died over 100 years ago - who is the author and what was their date of death?
    • I've traced the image to the front page of the edition from 16 March 1867 (Volume 16, Issue 11) (Interestingly Scientific American wants to charge $7.99 for a copy when it's available for free from on the Internet Archive). Our version is sharper than that in the Internet Archive version. There are two inscriptions, one bottom left which looks like "Seitz Del". This could be the same as an "L. Seitz, Del" that appears on another engraving in Scientific American in 1869 and this also from 1869. I can't find any indication who this might be. The second inscription is something like "E.N.Y" in the bottom middle. Again, can't find anything on this. Nevertheless, the correct copyright notice should be {{PD-US-expired}} because it was published before 1925. I have detailed this in the image description.--DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Street_railway_journal_(1906)_(14760781405).jpg: as per the Flickr tag, please add a more specific copyright tag
  • File:David_Gentleman_Charing_Cross_2.jpg: what's the copyright status of the mural?
    • The artwork will be copyright, but "freedom of panorama" will apply to this.--DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Freedom of panorama in the UK does not cover 2D graphic works. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would this one be better? It's a wider view focused less on the mural.--DavidCane (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I would say the mural is still the primary focus of that image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Arguably, this is part of "a building" of which photographs are permitted. Alternatively, a fair use argument could be made for inclusion of one of these on the basis that it is a small portion of a much larger work (up to 100 m long) used to provide readers with an understanding of the character of the work.--DavidCane (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think the building argument holds water, but you're welcome to try for a fair-use argument if you don't think the character of the larger work can be demonstrated using a portion that is not copyrighted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't see how a portion might not be copyrighted.--DavidCane (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • For example the motif from the following example is out of copyright. If you mean you want to demonstrate only this particular mural, then yes, fair use would be the only potential avenue. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The group of three images are included to show the stylistic differences of the decoration use for the three lines, so I'll add a fair use argument.--DavidCane (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Charing_Cross_tube_stn_Bakerloo_platform_motif.JPG should include a tag for the original artwork. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, have you formed a view on this one yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue still outstanding is the mural, which now has a fair-use rationale but a CC tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I left this in place as the image was originally released on that basis. Should the CC tag be removed because of the copyright of the part of the image that is the mural?--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep the CC tag for the photo, but you'll need a fair-use tag for the mural. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fair use tags for this article and the artist's article are in place, though the bot's seem to getting confused by these and the simultaneous CC tag.--DavidCane (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass edit

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref one says "XLS" ref 2 says "XLSX" – assuming they should be the same?
    • I've fixed the citation template for the first.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • retrieval date for ref 1 missing.
    • citation template updated to include this.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 141 really isn't a reliable source (same with 160 – the same site), it's a blog and seems to be self published.
    • 141: It is a blog, but about three quarters of the way down the page you will see the copyright notice for the maps and the link to the Freedom of Information Request and Answer page where TfL has posted the originals. These, link to PDF or HTML versions (first plan in each set) which the author of IanVisits has rotated and cleaned-up. Therefore, I think the plan is verifiable and the source can be ascertained. The link to the equivalent map for Green Park was accepted when that article went through the FAC process in 2018.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 160: As indicated above, this is included primarily for the photographs of the subway areas. Ref 161 links to the Westminster City Council Planning page with the specifics of the approval, including drawings.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your justification seems sound here. Aza24 (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval dates missing in refs 155, 163, 167
    • 155 and 163: Done. I've used 8 May, which is the date the article was transferred from my sandbox.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 167: Done. citation template amended.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBNs that don't begin with "978" are ISBN 10s and should be updated to their appropriate ISBN 13 equivalents. (use the converter)
  • Not ref related but you have some double links: London Waterloo station, City of London, Aldwych tube station and Bank and Monument stations
    • Done for London Waterloo, Aldwych and Bank and Monument. The second link for City of London is against "the City" which is linked to clarify that this is distinct from "the city" in a generic sense. This was to address a comment on the talk page.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks not done – can be done if requested by coords
  • Reliability looks fine other than refs 141/160 Aza24 (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright thanks for your work here, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This nomination is four weeks old and has only attracted one support. I put it on Urgents a few days ago, but it needs to attract several further reviews over the next week or so if it is not to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Six weeks in and only two supports. This needs at least one further substantive review over the next two or three days, or it is liable to be archived on the next coordinator progress check. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DavidCane, this is now the oldest outstanding FAC and while it has had an encouraging flurry of activity it also has a number of unaddressed comments. I realise that RL is RL, but it would be a shame for this nomination to be archived at this stage. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David and Ealdgyth, if you're able to let us know how things stand after the nominator's latest round of actions/responses, that'd be great. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to oppose, but I think the nom and I are at an impasse in regards to prose and organization and I don't think I'll be adding further comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
not there yet. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'm making some minor copyedits as I go; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • The BS&WR and CCE&HR are mentioned in the 1890s section as two of the numerous proposals of the late 19th century. Once we say they were approved the article moves on to other proposals, and the reader has no way to know that these will ultimately be the first to be constructed. I'd suggest signposting this a bit, e.g. with "The BS&WR and the CCE&HR would become the first two lines through Charing Cross to be completed, though it was several years before construction began on either line" at the end of the second paragraph of the 1890s section.
  • How much of the material in this article would re-appear in articles about some of the other stations -- e.g Leicester Square, or Piccadilly, or Embankment? I'm wondering if it would be better to organize some of the planning discussions in a more summary-style way. A reader looking for information about the history of the station needs to see the history of planning, but a reader interested in reading about the history of half-a-dozen stations doesn't expect to see half the article repeated in each case. What's your guideline for deciding what to include in this article and what can be left to articles such as Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway?
    • I've tried to be quite strict about what information has gone into this article about the lines and limit it as far as possible to only as much background as is necessary. For this reason, some further pertinent information has been put into the notes rather than the main body text to avoid overloading the reader with detail. So, for example, talking about the B&SWR through Charing Cross, I have discussed where its termini were going to be, as much information about its construction as is necessary to describe when the station was constructed. But information about the wider background of the BS&WR (e.g. Whittaker Wright) is put in the notes. Charing Cross has a particularly long and complicated planning history being both the objective of east-west and north-south route proposals and I can't think of another station on the system that was so drawn out prior to a station being opened. I don't think there would be much duplication with other station articles; the GA article on Embankment station is one I took through the GAN process ten years ago and there's very little on Charing Cross or Trafalgar Square excepting for the discussion of the name changes. The article for Green Park station is an example that follows the same pattern and had some of the same issues with rival companies vying to build along a similar route. I think you will find that this avoids duplicating much of the discussion on the PC&NELR and B&PCR. If expanded in a similar way to this article, Piccadilly Circus would need to mention the Piccadilly, City and North East London Railway in a similar way to Green Park and Leicester Square would need to mention the North Western and Charing Cross Railway and its successors, but, from memory, I don't think that either would have much more to discuss. In both cases the stations were built from the outset to act as interchanges with both lines through each station being under the control of the UERL. The articles on the CCE&HR, the BS&WR, the GNP&BR, the CLR (as well as the C&SLR and UERL which get minor mentions) are all ones I wrote and took through the FAC process and I think that there is a minimum of doubling of information.--DavidCane (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I'm convinced. I've written articles myself that have unavoidable duplication of material and I understand it can be necessary; it seems you're keeping it to a reasonable minimum. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • work on the Fleet line's stages 2 and 3 did not proceed: we haven't said what these stages were planned to include.
    • Mostly covered in note af. I have extended a sentence in first paragraph of "Reconstruction and integration for the Jubilee line" to indicate where the rest of the plans would have taken it.--DavidCane (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally this is in good shape. Two of the points above are minor, but the organizational question seems like a bigger issue. I'd like to be convinced that the content of the article will not have to be extensively duplicated in other articles before I support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Eddie edit

  • Shortly Eddie891 Talk Work 19:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the year the mainline station opened." what is this mainline station? Probably my ignorance or I'm just missing something, but I'm not sure what it refers to
  • "but the scheme was again unable to raise funds" perhaps "sufficient fund(ing)(s)" unless they really didn't raise any funds
    • I've clarified. As per the standing orders, some money would have had to be deposited into the Court of Chancery when the original bill was submitted, but the prospectus for the railway issued in December 1871 failed to attract sufficient investment.--DavidCane (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the whole scheme was rejected in 1882" perhaps "parliament rejected the scheme in 1882" for clarity?
  • "The scheme was the first railway in the UK to propose" I'd suggest ""The scheme was the first in the UK to propose"
  • I feel as though the article is missing a paragraph or so of background on the context of the subway building scene in london-- so many subway companies come up and its just kinda leaves me asking "what's going on here?" (i.e. a sentence explaining how subway plans get approved, a sentence about where all these companies are coming from, a sentence briefly talking about charing cross as a region) Might just be me, though
    • I have added a brief note on the private aspect of the railway companies and the approval process. Like the Railway Mania of the 1840s, it was a free-for-all in terms of who could conceive and promote a railway scheme - generally a consortium of businessmen. There were a lot of optimistic and speculative schemes and some of the schemes were scams and promoters were frauds (not the ones mentioned in this article). Parliament would consider any scheme put before, and, given the potential upheaval of the proposed routes in the urban centre of London there was a bit more scrutiny on routes than for lines in open country. Initially, there was not much consideration of the viability of the schemes. It was only after the up swell of tube schemes in the 1890s and 1900s that Parliament tried to be more rigorous in trying to coordinate the various scheme.--DavidCane (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Charing Cross as a locale is described in the lead section where the local points of interest are described.--DavidCane (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two stations were to be provided" -> "Two stations were to be built" or "Two stations were provided for", perhaps
  • "The promoters failed to appear and the bill was declared " pr'aps "failed to appear in parliament"?
  • "The CCE&HR submitted a bill" date?
    • 1901, as per the section heading and first sentence.--DavidCane (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the extension to Victoria as being not in compliance with standing orders." The link is not remotely helpful in figuring out what 'standing orders' means here
    • There's been some changes and there's now a separate page at Standing Order which I have linked to. See note i for specifics on the standing orders applicable to railway schemes at the time.--DavidCane (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to provide an interchange with that line and the B&SWR. It was approved." date might be useful
  • "and steep gradient needed to pass the tunnels between buildings on the route" may just be me, but I think this is open to misinterpretation (are there tunnels between (connecting) buildings or the tunnels are passing between (by) buildings or something else) and could be clarified.
    • In the gap between the buildings to avoid them. clarified.--DavidCane (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of the CLR scheme, including all of the southern loop line, and the entirety of the CCH&DR scheme " could read as though the CCH&DR was part of the CLR scheme, suggest flipping (The entirety of the CCH&DR scheme and the majority of the CLR scheme)
  • "The P&CR proposal was modified from the previous year and was now intended" maybe smth like "the P&CR proposal from 1901 was modified to run beyond" or something that eliminates the awkward "was modified [...] was now intended"
  • "Between Piccadilly Circus and Ludgate Circus, the route was similar to the CLR's loop line proposal." is this sentence intentionally uncited? If so, why?
  • "The two stations were not connected below ground and to make interchanging between the lines easier, " unclear what two stations- also, I think the comma would be better as a period here
    • The BS&WR and CCE&HR stations. Reworded.--DavidCane (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "protect the system from flooding caused by a bomb falling in the river that might breach the tunnels" I think the 'might' would fit better elsewhere, maybe " protect the system from flooding in the event that a bomb fell in the river and breached the tunnels"
  • "The concrete seals were removed after the crisis " date? some would argue the crisis didn't end until WWII did
    • The seals were removed by 8 October when stations reopened and services resumed. I have rephrased this slightly.--DavidCane (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The location of the station was not specified." intentionally unsourced?
    • There's no particular way to cite this. Produced by town planners rather than railway engineers, the County of London Plan was general in its suggestions and covered much beyond railways. It gave no indications of station locations except for the blobs on the map. The 1946 report by railway experts, basically said it was impractical to operate a mainline station at deep level and would be vastly expensive to construct the routes proposed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "None of these proposals were developed by the mainline railway companies, the London Passenger Transport Board or their successor organisations" ditto?
    • The fact that we don't have any of the things proposed is clear, but I don't have a citation.--DavidCane (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although permission had been granted, " date?
    • 1971 and 1972. In note ah already, but added to text.--DavidCane (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No further work has been done on these proposals." so why do they merit a sub-section? A report that nothing came of
    • On the same basis as all of the other proposals described above. Transport planning is a slow process in London and it may well come back to life at some point. There are plans being developed now for an extension of the Bakerloo line from Elephant & Castle to Lewisham and beyond. The first part of this follows a route along the Old Kent Road that was originally proposed in 1898.--DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(sometimes informally abbreviated as Charing X)" not mentioned anywhere else in the article
  • "The station is in fare zone 1." not mentioned anywhere else in the article
  • It's a bit unclear in 'Reconstruction and integration for the Jubilee line' when exactly they were combined by passageways-- I see, in order, 1) proposals for a new route 2) construction 3) the line name change 4) tunnels 5) running tunnels east of the new platforms ,whatever that means 6) ticket hall enlarged 7) new entrances 8) elevator shaft 9) combined station is opened. I just feel like there's something missing, when the decision was made to combine the stations an why
    • running tunnels are the tunnels the trains run through between stations. Those east of the new jubilee platforms were built for the continuation of the Stage 2 works, but not used. The stations were combined because it was always a problem having Trafalgar Square and Strand so close but not connected at low level as noted earlier in the article as the rationale for extending the CCE&HR to Embankment.
  • I feel like this article is weighted heavily towards 'planning' and there's some missing stuff about the actual station. Among the questions I have after reading through the article are: what does the station look like? What was the reception to it? Was it designed by a noted architect? Now, I'm not familiar with the source material, but it just feels a bit unbalanced to me
    • Compared to other stations, the number of attempts to get permission to build a station in the area is unusual. Most didn't have the extended period of failure, hence the large planning section.
    • There are images of the ticket halls and platforms and the passages. There are more images via the Commons Category link in the External links section where there are also further links historic pictures at the London Transport Museum.
    • The station has never had a station building at ground level. Unlike the Jubilee line extension from Green Park to Stratford which did have noted architects, the station was designed in-house by London Transport, so nothing to mention on that front.--DavidCane (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's just about it from me, mostly minor things, a few bigger questions-- mostly coming down to my complete lack of background knowledge and probably easily resolvable. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eddie891: Thanks Eddie. It's always useful to get comments from someone not familiar with the subject matter and terminology.--DavidCane (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from David Fuchs edit

review forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Sorry for the delay, it's a hefty article to get through.[reply]

  • Where's the source(s) supporting the "Planning" subsection? The nearest proximate source is Badsley-Ellis but that's two sentences into the next subsection.
    • As noted in one of the responses above, this introduction section is essentially just explaining what the following sections are going to lay out in detail with sources.--DavidCane (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't Parliament be capitalized, as we're referring to a specific parliament here?
  • The choice to have {{abbr}} templates throughout the history when referring to the railways feels something like a crutch that avoids the more useful idea of minimizing having to use the alphabet soup abbreviations where possible. If a rail line is only getting mentioned two or three times in total, you're essentially giving it undue weight. In the W&WR paragraph, for instance, you don't actually need to keep mentioning the name as it's clear in context we're talking about the same rail line throughout. Likewise I think I agree with some of the discussion on the talk page that it starts getting into a blow-by-blow in-the-weeds approach to the early history, when streamlining and summarizing would make it reach much, much better. Especially when the great majority of this content is being covered by just one author, it feels like it's not justifying its length, and the fact that it's got more than a dozen footnotes to support the content is evidence that it's really starting to get too specialized.
    • As I've noted above, the number of schemes proposed for the area was exceptional due to its position at the intersection of favourable east-west and north-south routes. This exceptional position warrants being discussed and one of the aspects on the history of the London Underground that is less well known is the variety of schemes that were proposed. I think that this warrants coverage which is as minimal as possible for each scheme without ignoring any.--DavidCane (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked through the article and there are 32 railway companies mentioned. In most cases, these mentioned more than two or three times. I have removed some abbreviation use for the W&WR where used in one paragraph, but left the abbreviation as it is mentioned later. I have removed abbreviations for the CC&ER, the LCS, the KCCC&WS and the C&WR. I have kept the HStP&CCR (used four times including in a note) because of its cumbersome name and the CCH&DR (used 4 times) to distinguish it from the CCE&HR. I have also kept NELR (used four times) to distinguish if from the PC&NELR.--DavidCane (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might just be me, but I found the many, many proposed tube site images more distracting rather than helpful, given that they are mostly the exact same image with different dots. It also suggests the above-ground topography didn't change, which seems unlikely.
    • I initially put all of the dots on a single image but they made it hard to place the labels for clarity. By dividing them into five groups on separate images, it also means that it is easier to find the locations that are relevant to that part of the text and not have to scroll back up to a single image.
    • After construction of the mainline station in 1864, above ground topography changed only a little up to 1906. Victoria Embankment was constructed in the around 1865 and Northumberland Avenue and Charing Cross Road were constructed in the 1870s, but the basic street layout around Trafalgar Square, Whitehall, Strand, Duncannon Street, etc. and the blocks of buildings were unchanged. Stanford's 1863 map is here and an 1868-73 OS map is here.--DavidCane (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New tunnels branching from the original route south of Green Park were to be constructed, and the line to Charing Cross was to be closed."—so... this never happened? The verb tense suggests not, but it's never made clear and the next sentence suggests the tunnels being bored are those selfsame "new tunnels".
    • Changed to "would". The first sentence is describing what was going to happen the next the details of when it happened.--DavidCane (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Jubilee line platforms were closed and walls constructed across the intermediate concourses at the top of the two banks of escalators." Citation?
    • There are some photos (here and here) and videos (here (0.29)) and an article that mentions the "unassuming maintenance door", but nothing that would probably be considedred citable. --DavidCane (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No further work has been done on these proposals." Citation?
    • No citation, but there is no evidence of any work to progress the proposals further. This is a long-term plan and there have been none of the consultations on such an extension that TfL does in these cases.--DavidCane (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidCane: Any thoughts on the unaddressed comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now dealt with.--DavidCane (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth edit

  • What makes the following high quality reliable sources? And not just "another FA uses it" but what makes it a reliable source.
  • I'm assuming that the "Capital Transport" listed as a publisher is a specialty publisher? Or is it connected with the organization running the Tube?
    • Capital Transport is an independent specialist publisher of transport-related books. The Jubilee line and Northern line books by Mike Horne are published in Association with London Underground Limited and the Bakerloo line book is published in association with the London Transport Museum.--DavidCane (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted in passing
    • Under Ticket hall refurbishment section "but did not served Charing Cross until the Northern line ticket hall reopened" "did not served"? Is this a Britishism? I would normally expect to see "did not serve"
    • Under Closure of Jubilee section "and are worked empty to one of the Charing Cross platforms" ... jargon here is ... unclear to nonspecialists and would need some updating
    • Under proposal for connection section - "No further work has been done on these proposals." is uncited.
    • Under "reconstruction and integration" section - "Works on fitting out the tunnels and stations began at the end of 1975, but serious delays in the progress of the works prevented the line from opening in 1978 as intended. Tracks and signals were commissioned and trial running of trains on the line began on 14 August 1978, but works on the station was delayed by industrial action at the escalator contractor." - couple of things here - "works on the station" ... britishism again? I would expect "work on the station". Also "industrial action" ... is this a strike?
      • Perhaps not so much a Britishism as a construction industry term (within which I work), separating out the different types of work by the different construction trades and therefore thinking of them in terms of a collection of separate works. Changed.
      • Industrial action might have been a strike or it might have been a go-slow or a work-to-rule or some other issue. Horne is not specific, mentioning "industrial relations", so I have avoided using the term "strike". I have added a link to industrial action.--DavidCane (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have time to look through the whole article but I would hope that there aren't any more jargony or unclear wordings...

Ealdgyth (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JKBrook85 edit

  • Great work, DavidCane! I read through it this evening and support it. I have one suggestion you might take up. In the "Planning" subsection of the "History" section, I think it'd be useful to have a sentence or two explaining why Charing Cross, rather than any number of other busy squares/intersections in London, was the site of so much underground railway interest at the inception. Were there political interests who supported it? Was it for economic reasons? What made this location special? (Or was it not special, and this was just part of a wave of underground activity at the time?) JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. The preference for an underground station at Charing Cross was partly because of the mainline railway station, partly because it is the centre of London (distances to and from London are measured from here) and partly because it was on a useful north-south axis and an east-west axis for new transport routes. I'll think about how to word this in a note.--DavidCane (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

I've been meaning to get to this for a while. Apologies for the delay.

  • Do we need the list of tourist attractions/notable buildings at the end of the lead?
  • I sort of agree with David F above that the abbreviations hamper readability, and not all of the early history seems to be directly relevant to Charing Cross. Is there anything more that can be distilled? The detail is certainly fascinating (I have a copy of Wolmar's Subterranean Railway and thoroughly enjoyed it) but I wonder if some of it would be better off in either a split out article or a higher-level one, especially as many of the abandoned schemes wouldn't have resulted in the station we know today. Bear in mind this an article on one station on the network; we only need enough background to place it in context and allow the reader to understand how it fits in.
  • Aside from that (whether you think splitting or distilling is possible or useful or not), there are several points where you go into more detail about routes than is necessary for the entry on the station. See my next-but-two bullet point and some of the sample edits I've made.
  • What does footnote "d" have to do with Charing Cross tube station specifically? Ditto "c", "f", the second sentence of "g", "i", "j", "k", "l", "n", "p", "q", "r", "s", "ae", "af", "ag", "ah".
  • The second proposal, the London Central Subway) looks like a stray bracket.
  • The Victoria, City and Southern Electric Railway proposed a line from Pimlico to Peckham Rye connecting Victoria with the City, Southwark and south-east London Fine as far as Peckham Rye (not directly relevant, but knowing the two points being connected is useful context if someone wants to look up their geographical location to CX), but the rest is venturing away from the topic at hand.
  • While the bills were awaiting their final readings, the LUT was taken over by Speyer Brothers, the financiers of the rival Underground Electric Railways Company of London (UERL).[81][n] The LUER's planned route was similar to that of the UERL-owned B&PCR.[o] Under Speyer Brothers' control, the LUT withdrew the LUER bill and the remainder of the LSR proposals failed.[84] I see why this is important, but I feel it could be shortened or phrased in a way that relates it more directly to Charing Cross tube station.
  • The GNP&BR proposed a modification of the previous year's B&PCR for a branch southwards from Piccadilly Circus. This time the branch would run under Leicester Square with platforms under King William Street and a station building at the junction of Agar Street and Strand. The tunnels would then turn eastwards under Strand to continue to Mansion House in the City of London where it would connect to the MDR's deep-level line.[89] Between Piccadilly Circus and Ludgate Circus, the route was similar to the CLR's loop line proposal.[90] We only need the details that are relevant to Charing Cross.
  • Construction of the BS&WR began in August 1898 Might it be worth spelling the name out again to remind the reader given that this is one of the few companies that actually managed to build a line serving Charing Cross?

Overall my impression is that this is a well-written, meticulously researched history, but in places it ventures off into becoming a history of the London Underground and various proposed schemes, which (interesting as they are) are not directly relevant to the station. I think it could be trimmed by a couple of hundred words (+ lots of footnotes), which would also improve readability. If the detail is not already included in another article, it certainly should be somewhere, just not here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis edit

I found myself getting interested in the history of the Underground lately, so hope I'll be useful in this nomination. After all comments have been resolved, I will support this nomination.

  • (Lead) If we remove the brackets (previews don't have brackets), it'll be "Charing Cross is a London Underground station at Charing Cross." This sounds weird. Perhaps change it to "Charing Cross (sometimes informally abbreviated as Charing X or CX) is a London Underground station at the junction of the same name, located in the City of Westminster."?
  • (Lead) "On the Bakerloo line it is between Embankment and Piccadilly Circus stations" add comma "and on the Northern line it is between Embankment and Leicester Square stations."
  • (Infobox) Please add an alt text.
  • (Planning) No references? I AGF that more specific references are cited below, but if you could address?
  • (Planning) "...submitted to Parliament"-- Link Parliament of the United Kingdom?
  • (1860s and 1870s) "...and the year the mainline station opened." Link Charing Cross railway station?
  • (War and new plans) "The location of the station was not specified." Not referenced.
  • (Reconstruction and integration for the Jubilee line) "Strand station closed on 16 June 1973 so that"-- perhaps "Strand station was closed on 16 June 1973, so that"?
  • (Proposal for connection to Docklands Light Railway) Suggest changing subsection name to "Docklands Light Railway proposal).
  • (Proposal for connection to Docklands Light Railway) "No further work has been done on these proposals." I'd rather not have that sentence, as readers can know directly that there are still no work done since there's no word on it in this article. If there is future work, it can also outdate quickly.

GeraldWL 08:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius edit

I've had London Underground articles on my radar for a while, but it took until now for me to see this. I did have some concerns:

  • a year after the opening of the Metropolitan Railway, the world's first underground railway, and the year the mainline station opened. - the year the mainline Charing Cross station opened, I suppose. Is it necessary to mention that the Met was the world's first underground railway? Because that part of the sentence is getting into run-on territory.
  • The section under Whitehall was opposed by the government and it was removed so that the line was to terminate at Charing Cross, but the whole scheme was rejected by Parliament in 1882. - could this be split into 2 sentences? Do we know why the revised routing was rejected?
  • There are a few paragraphs that are single sentences, which I would consider combining. The 1900s section is pretty content heavy (we're already getting into third level subsections). I would suggest combining some paragraphs in the 1901 section, particularly.
    • Proposals for the 1901 parliamentary session that planned to serve Charing Cross included three new lines and the extension of one already approved. - should this be combined with the next three paragraphs? However, the three following paragraphs may be detailed enough to warrant keeping these separated.
    • The CCE&HR submitted a bill for an extension of its approved route south from Charing Cross to Westminster and Victoria. - should this be combined with the next paragraph?
  • I guess I don't get this, because things were done a bit differently here in NYC, but was Parliament the authority that gave final approval to the routes? Maybe that's the reason why the companies had to resubmit their bills every session.
  • The bill was rejected for not complying with standing orders in 1905,[93] and resubmitted for the 1906 session with the station moved to the junction of Agar Street and Strand.[94] Again the bill was rejected for procedural reasons and it was not presented again.[95][q] - I suggest the "resubmitted for the 1906 session" part can be moved to the next sentence.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sadly, after looking at the article again, I can't support the nomination at this time. While it's fairly well written, it doesn't satisfy WP:FACR#2B, "a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings", and to a lesser extent WP:FACR#1A, "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". This wasn't easy to write, as I'm not one to oppose an FAC lightly.

  • It is fairly concerning that there's no unified layout or design section, not even a synopsis. The history section, meanwhile, takes up almost all of the article. The history section is great, actually, but counterbalanced by the fact that any information about the station design/features is missing or is situated in an unexpected place. For example, to the extent that the article explains how the platforms are arranged, it's hidden in several sections in the history. The history section shouldn't be so confusing that it needs to be summarized (which I see the nominator has disagreed with, but which is a valid point).
  • The planning section goes down into a third-level subsection, but no other section in this article goes down into anything more than a first-level subsection. I do think the planning section should be cut down by a couple hundred words. For the subject of this article, only the BS&WR and HStP&CCR (CCE&HR) are directly relevant to the creation of the station, while the others are for proposals at the same site or nearby, which may or may not have affected the creation of the Bakerloo and Northern line platforms.
  • The "Connections" section is basically a bulleted list crammed into one bullet. The "Use in media" section has a brief sentence as to "why" the station is used in media, but otherwise is a bulleted list without too much context.

Please don't take this personally - it has plenty of potential as a future FA nom. However, I'm finding the article to be disorganized for anything other than history. I would suggest following through with the GAN that was withdrawn, or opening a PR, before resubmitting this. Epicgenius (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Amakuru edit

  • Sorry to be a downer, and this is probably a decent B-class article, but the structure isn't there for me yet for it to be able to support it as an FA. Examples:
    • There is far too much material in the "Planning" section which has little to do with the subject of this article, namely the Charing Cross tube station. A brief history of the tube would be good for context, but not to this level of detail. Bearing in mind that the station opened in 1906, and is exclusively a deep-tube station, having so much about cut-and-cover proposals for the 1860s and 1870s seems tangential at best.
    • Text is choppy and not really the sort of brilliant prose required by criterion 1(a). Just as one example, the "1901" section has six separate paragraphs, each of which only has one or two lines when viewed on a wide monitor.
    • And in fact, on that note, why is this divided into year-by-year sections anyway? I would expect a history to be composed more of logically connected stories of the planning process, rather than arbitrary breaks at year end. The later sections, starting with "Construction and opening" do a much better job on both of these issues, in fact.
  • Other miscellaneous thoughts:
    • The "Use in media" could give more detail in the form of prose, rather than just a bald list of films using the platforms. This is quite an interesting aspect of this tube station, and I would like to see some info on what sort of scenes were filmed on the abandoned platforms, how the crews did their work, whether they needed to close the rest of the station at any point etc. And do they have specific trains which fulfil this role, or do they just sequester trains from elsewhere on the network?
    • I'm quite surprised there's no description of the layout of the station, and how many platforms there are etc. (This might be all contained somewhere in history, but would be nice as a separate detail). See for example Herne Hill railway station#Description, which gives details of how that station is configured.
    • I also agree with David Fuchs that there are a few too many maps with dots on them, and it's not quite clear how they add to a reader's generally understanding of this tube station.
  • Anyway, this does have a good foundation and my advice would be to go away and tidy up the prose, and consider getting a WP:Peer review on it which would iron out any issues and hopefully get it back here for a shot at FA.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note edit

Nearly ten weeks in and two formal opposes, and concerns from other reviewers make archiving inevitable. Personally I feel that there is an FA in the material you have, but it needs to be presented in a better way. I would recommend following the advice of @Amakuru and Epicgenius: and putting it in for a PR. Some of the reviewers who have commented above may be willing to assist with this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Charing_Cross_tube_station/archive1&oldid=999399832"