Talk:Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: DavidCane (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Excellent. I remember the story of Huskisson from school history. Superb fleshing out of the events.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
see below

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:
Shouldn't there be retrieval dates for the ODNB, Times and Images of England references? Google books has the Cavanagh book online with the section on Huskisson's memorial available here.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
No doubt, we will be seeing this at FAC shortly.

Prose comments

Introduction
- The wording about earlier horse-drawn railways and "a few industrial sites already used primitive steam locomotives for bulk haulage" seems to gloss over the Stockton and Darlington Railway which many will think was the first steam railway.
  - The S&D at this time wasn't a "true" steam railway; it was an industrial horse tramway on which Stephenson also ran experimental steam locomotives, and sometimes let passengers hitch rides in the empty coal-cars. The only passenger carriage on the steam-hauled services when it opened was reserved for the directors; the dedicated passenger services in the early years were horse-drawn. The multi-tube boiler hadn't yet been invented; Locomotion No 1 was spectacularly inefficient, and only made economic sense when it was hauling coal cars and could be constantly topped up. The S&D wasn't rebuilt into a true railway until after the L&M had opened. I don't really want to include a long "list of other railways which could be considered the first railway" section in an already long article; if one mentions the S&D one also has to mention the Middleton Railway (which was already using a steam loco by the time the S&D opened) and the Hetton colliery railway (the first steam-only railway). I think "industrial site using primitive steam locomotives for bulk haulage" covers all three. – iridescent 2 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "...he did not notice an approaching locomotive." seems odd when followed immediately by "He panicked and tried to clamber into the Duke's carriage..." - he must have seen it for him to have panicked.
  - Agree, reworded – iridescent 2 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in the next section, but I think it would be useful to state how far is it from Liverpool to Manchester on the L&M.
  - Added to first para. – iridescent 2 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Make it clear that Rocket is a locomotive.
  - Reworded that section slightly to make it clear. – iridescent 2 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why were the crowds in Manchester hostile when the Duke arrived? Because the trains were late, because they did not like the PM or because they were an unruly rabble?
  - All three. It's all explained in the body text; the lead is so long already I didn't really want to go into detail. – iridescent 2 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Liverpool and Manchester Railway
- "George Stephenson was eventually appointed..." suggests there was something causing a delay in the decision.
  - William James was the L&M's original engineer, but was involved in so many other schemes that the directors dropped him. Stephenson was originally appointed in 1824, but the Bill was defeated in parliament and the L&M let him go. When Huskisson used his clout to get the scheme revived George Rennie and Charles Blacker Vignoles were tasked with designing it. In mid-1826 Vignoles was dropped and Stephenson reinstated. I don't really want to go into this much detail on an article that's specifically about the opening day and the impact of the events of that day, rather than a general history of the L&M; the first two sections are there just to show what was being opened, why Huskisson was an important figure whose death prompted the reaction it did, and why Huskisson's relationship with the Duke of Wellington was such that he'd walk across a live railway line to shake his hand. – iridescent 2 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps just take out "eventually".--DavidCane (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When was Stephenson's appointment?
  - See above. The more detailed history of the line before and after the opening belongs at Liverpool and Manchester Railway, rather than here. – iridescent 2 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
William Huskisson
- Not something for this article and I know that parliament and government were much more fluid arrangements based on influence and partonage, but it is interesting that he held what would today be a junior minister's position without being an MP or a member of the upper house.
  - This was the age of rotten boroughs; Government worked by selecting ministers, and then finding a seat to 'elect' them. As you say, it shouldn't really be explained on here. – iridescent 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rainhill Trials and preparation for opening
- I expect when this gets to FAC someone will want to know how much £500 is in today's money.
  - Trying to avoid it. I've given modern-equivalent pricing for fares, as that's clearly a case of consumer pricing, but there's no obvious index for capital-expenditure that doesn't give perverse readings. (GDP equivalents and the like make no sense during the Industrial Revolution, when GDP in the technical sense of "total amount of money being spent" shot up to a huge multiple of the previous figure as the wage economy replaced farming and payment-in-kind.) – iridescent 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was the Liverpool terminus "proposed" or under construction?
  - Not sure when construction started on Crown Street. Changed to "forthcoming" to cover both cases. – iridescent 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brilliant quote from Fanny Kemble. Makes her sound like a heroine of steampunk.
  - The full quote is well worth reading, but just too long to include. Kemble's an extraordinary character—she's like the Forrest Gump of the 19th century. She turns up everywhere from the opening of the L&M, to the Emancipation Proclamation, to dictating Washington Square to Henry James. – iridescent 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway
- Might be worth mentioning that all of other engines were similar to Rocket
  - Considered going into more detail about the designs, but decided against it. They weren't all of a standard design (compare the images of Northumbrian and Rocket from the time), and I thought it would mean including a lot of "the chimney was repositioned"/"the cylinders were at foo angle" detail;, which 99% of readers won't care about. – iridescent 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix collision
- Were not Phoenix and North Star both derailed? The quote seems to indicate that is why the lead train stopped.
  - Oops, my mistake; Phoenix derailed, came to a stop, and North Star rear-ended it. Fixed. – iridescent 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continuation to Manchester
- Am I reading this correctly; did Phoenix and North Star on one track pull the carriages along the other track?
  - Yes; because Northumbrian was the only engine on the southern track, and there was no crossover to move its carriages onto the northern track or another loco onto the southern track, they tied the carriages laterally to the locos on the other track. I don't know what the Health & Safety Executive would have made of it. – iridescent 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arrival in Manchester
- Is "the crowd was become hostile" from a quote, it seems a slight odd phrase.
  - My mistake; fixed – iridescent 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Return to Liverpool
- Tragedy descending into farce! I pity the poor guys stuck on top of the air shaft in the rain.
  - I know they're irrelevant to the broader story, but I really want to include it; they sum up the farce of the day so neatly. – iridescent 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inquest
- Is that 7 shillings for a single or a return?
  - Single. The concept of "return ticket" hadn't been invented yet, even though it seems obvious today—stagecoaches were independently operated, so people paid for each leg of a journey separately. – iridescent 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be interesting to indicate how the current equivalent of £26 compares approximately with the actual current fare?
  - I considered it, but it would mean updating it constantly. The fares are something of a bullseye for the Consumer Price Index; the 1830 fares equate to £11 and £26, compared to Northern Rail's £10.40 standard and £19.20 first-class today. – iridescent 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
- I would use either "one penny" or "1d" rather than "one d"
  - So would I, on reflection; changed. – iridescent 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--DavidCane (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]