Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:13, 18 April 2009 [1].

Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because its a companion piece to two of my existing featured articles on the early history of London's tube lines. It's brand new (uploaded today from user space), but, having taken three articles successfully through the FAC process, I believe that it covers all FAC requirements.

Images are either self created, uploaded as attribution sharealike from Flickr or PD due to age.DavidCane (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • TEcH. Review -- Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script), dabs and external links (respective link checker tools) are all found up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Review - All images in either public domain, a CC, or GFDL license and are hosted at commons. It seems like these rationales are all correct. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief comment: I found I had to force the 1898 and 1901 route maps up to above 500px before I could read the station names. I didn't have the same problems with the others, where the thumb was sufficient. Can any thing be done about those two? Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the text in the map is quiet small in the thumbnails. I was following the guidance in WP:PIC about thumbnailing being the best way to display images (so that users can have a degree of control over the size of images in their displays) and have assumed that readers interested in the maps will click on the links to see the full size versions. I did look to see if the text in the images could be bigger but I wanted the presentation to be consistent from one map to the next and some of them are a bit crowded meaning the station names can't be much bigger. If the images are made large enough to read the station names directly, they overpower the text and cause some formatting issues with the images running over more than section. --DavidCane (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is, you seem to have used three different print sizes in the seven maps. The lead map and the 1896 map are fine when the thumblink is used; the printing on the 1898, 1901 and 1902 maps is much smaller, and the station names are unreadable even using the thumb. The last two maps use a slightly bigger print and the station names are readable again – just. For clarity's sake I would like to see all the text on all the diagrams in the size used in the first two, or at least no smaller than in the last three. I take your point about crowding, but you need to consider readibility, too. I'm not asking for the images in the article to be made bigger, but in my view a diagram should be readable when the thumblink is used - the reader shouldn't have to force up further. Could you look at this? I am off to do my delayed reading of the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/
      • Within the WP:LT group, this is a well respected and recognised source of high quality information. The distances are based on London Undergrounds official kilometrage.--DavidCane (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The site gives a comprehensive list of its published sources here plus other, more general, sources here (under sources). I have a number of the books listed in the bibliography (using two of them myself as sources for the article) and have crossed-checked information listed on the site against these without discovering any discrepancies, so it seems fair to conclude that other information is also properly sourced. The information for which the web site is cited in the article is:
            1. the length of line in the original form and current condition. I have confirmed these are accurate by:
            2. the number of lifts at certain stations - which matches the observable facts.
            --DavidCane (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1908.html
      • This is only being used as a link to an image of an original 1908 map to demonstrate that the GN&PBR was referred to thereon as the Piccadilly Railway. An image of the map itself is on Wikipedia in the Tube map article, but I used the link to the external site as it offers a visual history of tube maps for those interested in the subject.--DavidCane (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these two out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments:
    • I have given the article a fairly light copyedit. I think the prose is OK, though there may be a readibility issue arising from the headache-inducing multiple initials. Way down the article I had long since forgotten what some of these meant, and had to track back to look for reminders. Also, the repetitive processes of seeking parliamentary approval are a bit numbing. I don't really know what the answer, if any, is – the information needs to be there, and being interesting is not a FA criterion. However, any opportunity of lightening the load on the reader should be taken. For example, in the Search for finance section, is it necessary to name the five other companies competing for finance? This information is marginal to the article, and ditching it would do no harm at all.
      • I have tried to vary the format of the sentences relating to the publication and assent of the bills and acts and have kept these to the minimum. There are many other acts amongst the various tube railways being proposed at the time that make reference to the GNP&BR and its constituent parts which I have not included as they're not vital to this article. The search for finance section mirrors the format of the corresponding article in the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway article which gives in full a slightly different list (different due to the different chronology) - it is a useful way to provide links into the other articles. The list could be relegated to note 12 but that's already quite long. --DavidCane (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have been thinking about a way to enable readers who have forgotten what an abbreviation stands for to find out. I have created an example at User:DavidCane/Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway which adds a glossary of abbreviations at the end and uses the {{wikicite}} template and [[#References-id]] method to jump to the relevant item in the glossary if the link is clicked. Only the GNP&BR abbreviations have been linked in the example but you can see how it works - e.g. click on the first GNP&BR in the first sentence. To go back to where you were hit the back button. Do you think that this would be helpful? --DavidCane (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an apparent gap in the chronology between Co-operation and control 1906–10, and Move to public ownership 1924–33. Did nothing significant happen in that time – the war, for instance? Wolmar has a chapter on the Underground during WW1. The jump in time meant, among other things, that Lord Ashfield appeared in the article without introduction—I've linked him and described him as UERL chairman. But I have a sense of missing history and would like to see this time gap filled in a bit.
      • Thanks for spotting that Ashfield needed a link. In the other articles he gets an earlier mention which was linked. Wolmar's chapter on the tube during WWI mainly deals with people using the Underground as a shelter from Zepplin raids and an increase in passenger numbers across the network. There isn't anything specifically relevant to the GNP&BR. Unlike the CCE&HR, the C&SLR and BS&WR, which all had extension plans on hold or under way, there was little planned on the GN&PBR, but I will see if I can close the gap somehow.--DavidCane (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have partially closed the gap by adding a paragraph about the escalators installed at Earl's Court in 1911 and the LER's 1913 bill for an extension west from Hammersmith (which wasn't built until the 1930s) but that still leaves a ten year gap from 1913 to 1923 when nothing particularly noteworthy happened to the line. I could just extend the consolidation section end date to 1923, but that seems a bit of a cheat. --DavidCane (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The early ownership history of the B&PCR is a bit confused. In Search for finance we are told: "In March 1901 he [Yerkes] and his backers purchased a majority of the shares in the MDR and, in September 1901, took over the B&PCR." In the next section it seems that MDR had purchased B&PCR in 1898. The two accounts don't appear to match.
      • Although the MDR bought the B&PCR in 1898 and had effective control, it remained a separate company with its own board. Badsey-Ellis's book indicates that it was not bought along with the MDR but came under Yerkes control in September 1901 following an agreement by the B&PCR board. It's probable that the B&PCR still had some non-MDR shareholders remaining in the intervening period although this is not stated explicitly. --DavidCane (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am still concerned by the point I raised earlier about the small print in some of the diagrams, and ask again that this is looked at with a view to improving readability of the diagrams.
      • I will have a look at this shortly. The first map is deliberately done with thicker lines and larger text but the rest are all at the same scale and the text is the same size in each. I think the problem is because a couple of diagrams have greater vertical dimensions than the others because of the extensions to Wood Green and Parsons Green which means they get more compression when reduced to thumbnail size (the compression is based on image width).--DavidCane (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't forgotten this - just haven't found an adequate solution yet. --DavidCane (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think there is anything that can be done about this problem. The size of the image displayed in the file description page shown when a thumbnail image in the article is clicked is controlled by individual users. Users can set this maximum size to one of six choices given on the Files tab under "my preferences". The options range from 320x240px to 10000x10000px, so it is impossible to know how big the image will appear for a particular user when it is displayed. For some, their setting will inevitably mean that the image will be too small to read the text whatever is done. For others, with the higher setting, they will see the full size image automatically without it being compressed.
          • I have slightly improved the display of the maps in the article itself by fixing the image widths, instead of allowing wiki software to size them based on user preferences. I have sized them so they are shown at the same scale.--DavidCane (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite these criticisms I believe that this is an important article, potentially of great interest to London Transport's historians. Why the WikiProject London classified it as of "low importance" I have no idea. This article is part of a series, two of which are featured. David has been meticulous in pursuit of detail, and with a little more work there is no reason why this shouldn't join the other two. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I think the low importance rating for Wikiproject London was added by me when I borrowed the tags from the Charing Cross, etc. article which is what they assessed that as. --DavidCane (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. From experience, it's impossible to write about pre-nationalisation British rail transport without the bewildering array of acronyms, thanks to the bewildering array of alphabet soup of the 100+ rival rail companies. As one of the other fish in the small pond of "obscure defunct rail transport projects of south east England" writers, I can see nothing I'd change about this article were I to have written it myself. One very minor point; you discuss other post-1933 station closures in the Legacy section, but not Aldwych – don't know if that's intentional. – iridescent 14:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (part 2)

These issues should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2009 (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/Great_Northern,_Piccadilly_and_Brompton_Railway&oldid=1138461879"