Talk:Baker Street and Waterloo Railway

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Baker Street and Waterloo Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080125074800/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1949.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1949.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baker Street and Waterloo Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223194851/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1908.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1908.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
Overall, this is an excellent article but in places feels like a general history of the Underground system, information which would be better presented in other articles so this one can focus on its subject. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd have expected a mention of the modern London Underground earlier in the lead
 * I'm concerned that the article goes into unnecessary detail in places, which hampers readability. For example, the subsection on the failed 1898 bill is nearly 400 words long in an already-long section and this long before we get to the building of the line. It's followed by another 400 words on a mostly unsuccessful proposal. These should be distilled and summarised in my opinion.
 * Some repetition, eg the Metropolitan Railway and Paddington station are introduced twice
 * Precise names and dates of enabling acts feel like excess detail. In fact, there's quite a bit of redundancy and excess detail throughout. Edits like this reduce the wordiness without the loss of any necessary detail or understanding.
 * A lot of the footnotes could be removed without any loss of understanding of the main subject. For example, detail about the lifts at stations feels far too in-the-weeds for an article about a railway line.
 * Some duplicate links could use attention.