Talk:London Waterloo station/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The usual pedantry commences...
 * Pedantry? It's comments that will help make an article better - so no problem from my side. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Main Line" all the way through now, apparently, "main line".
 * Done, there's been some recent debate on WT:UKRAIL about this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " (/ˌwɔːtərˈluː/)[5]," horrible ref placement, not even sure it's needed.
 * I don't think so - it's not like Chiswick or Leicester Square which get mispronounced - even tourists from Podunk, Iowa know what "water" is, and one word that rhymes with "loo". And anyone who's old enough will remember Abba. Anyway, I digress. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "central London terminus " that links to the group, but we probably need to link "terminus" really, as it's a bit of a technical term...
 * I don't think so, actually, as the London station group includes some wild cards like Vauxhall which are not terminals by anyone's imagination Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Once again, three refs in the lead? Probably no need for any of them (apart from maybe the IPA, but probably not even that), as they should all be in the main body...
 * I've removed them - they were all repeating stuff adequately cited in the body. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "to Exeter via Salisbury" the first is a place, the second a railway station. Confusing.  I would check this consistency (or otherwise) throughout.
 * In this particular instance, it's because the WEML goes to Exeter Central and Exeter St David's, neither of which seems to have prominence over the other, whereas Salisbury only has the one station. We could change it to Exeter St David's as that's the terminal station and also a main stop on the GWR from Bristol to Plymouth. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "with a confusing arrangement and platform numbers." doesn't read right.
 * Reworded <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "redesigned and rebuilt and re-opened " three re's, just one hyphenated, why?
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Waterloo is the busiest railway station in Britain. It is the largest station in the UK..." isn't it the busiest in the UK or does N'Iron have a station I'm not aware of? Why the different entities?
 * That's what the sources say; however this source says Waterloo is both the busiest and has the most floorspace in the UK. There is no way that Belfast Central comes close. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " twenty-four platforms" 24 per MOSNUM.
 * Done <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Infobox - Hungerford Bridge is piped to Hungerford Bridges which then redirects. Cut out the middle man.
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Loads of London bus routes piped to redirects.
 * All the ones going to redirects are all non-notable (they redirect to a list), so I've reworded this as "Several London bus routes...." - we don't need to list every single bus that goes past the station. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Location section could probably be two paras rather than three with that single-sentence para in its midst.
 * Done - I think I intended to expand on the single sentence but couldn't find anything suitable. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Could link Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom.
 * Done <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Wandsworth, Wimbledon, Kingston, Ditton Marsh and Weybridge" again, a mix of places and stations.
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "The station was opened on 11 July 1848 as "Waterloo Bridge Station" and designed by William Tite." for me the logic of that sentence works better in reverse. It's design then the opening.
 * Done <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not wishing to be mean, but do we all know what a "through station" is?
 * If you think that's "mean", I'd hate to get your opinions on some blocks I've seen ... anyway, clarified a bit <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "no adequate buildings that befitted a full terminus" [according to whom?]
 * Copyedited <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "grow in Waterloo" in or at?
 * Neither - reworded <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "the Windsor Station" the?
 * Yes, that's what the source says. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "became through-station" looks and reads odd, and not sure what it means (see above) so would opt for "became a through station".
 * Reworded <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "ad-hoc" I don't think that's hyphenated.
 * I can never remember the rules for dashes - anyway, fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "whilst " I like it, others prefer the more modern (i.e. 20th century) "while".
 * I think in this context, "and" would suffice <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure of the utility of linking Khartoum, certainly without some kind of explanation for the link.
 * Agreed - removed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "taxi" is common term, no linkie.
 * Agreed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "By 1899 Waterloo" comma after 1899.
 * Oops - fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)


 * "By 1899 Waterloo had 16 platform roads but only 10 platform numbers due to platforms in different sections of the station or on different levels sometimes duplicating the number of a platform elsewhere" spot the "platform" repeats....
 * I don't think I platform wrote that platform bit, I just got a platform source. Anyway, fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Instead, an Act passed in 1893 authorising a tube railway." grammar.
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Followed by " a 'tube' underground railway" which places 'tube' within apostrophes. Wrong way round.
 * I've just fixed this in another article, I think. Anyway, it should be deep level underground (with link) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What's a "branch siding"?
 * You don't need "branch" here - siding (rail) is a branch by definition (also linked and copyedited) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Construction of the main continued " main what?
 * Oops, fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "platforms[30] and a 700-foot (210 m) long concourse.[29] " move ugly ref placement.
 * Fixed (normally this happens when I can find a source citing part of a sentence but not all of it, tag the rest with, and fix it later. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " for inspiration.[31] followed by Alfred Weeks Szlumper " something very amiss here.
 * Must have written this section backwards. Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Portland Stone" has a link at Portland stone and doesn't capitalise Stone either.
 * Looks like somebody (?) fixed this. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If you wish to link "counties" then link it to something UK-specific.
 * That'll be Counties of England (I don't believe any normal service from Waterloo has gone to Wales, let alone Scotland) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " except for an explosion on one of the lines" any more on that? I guess it was from an airborne bomb?
 * All the source says is "Bomb damage in 1914-18 was limited to the night of 29 September 1917, when explosions occurred on the down main line between A Box and Westminster Bridge Road" <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "The main pedestrian entrance, the Victory Arch (known as Exit 5), was designed by Scott and is a memorial to company staff who were killed during the two world wars." reads odd because the last date you gave was 1922 so no WWII existed. Plus most of the time people capitalise World War...
 * Yes, I see what you mean - this looks like a case where I added a source to prose. The arch probably got updated for WWII, but the source doesn't actually say that, so for now I think "the war" will suffice. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "showing Peace sitting on Earth" why obfuscate Pax to Peace? Make it explicit.
 * Done (I think?) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "the Hounslow loop" do we all know what that means?
 * If I link to Hounslow Loop Line, readers hopefully will <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Southern Railway is piped to a redirect.
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "third-electrification" no hyphen required.
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "A loudspeaker tannoy system" tautological and tannoy is a trademark ....
 * Changed to public address system. (I was thinking of horn loudspeaker vs woofer)


 * "In 1934, the SR planned to invest £500,000 t" inflate for context please. And all other such values.
 * Done for the historical values, but do we really need to inflate for 2010 and 2012? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "with significant delays to mail traffic, with over" with...with is a little clumsy.
 * copyedited <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "British Rail and Privatisation" no need to capitalise the latter.
 * Done <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " to British Railways. Under British Rail, " repetitive and inconsistent.
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "of the Southern Region. During the time of the Southern Region" repetitive.
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "also under BR." add the abbreviation beforehand, Rail or Railways?!
 * Both. It was Railways from 1948-1965, and Rail thereafter to 1994 or thereabouts. Hopefully clarified in the article now. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "in April 1994[42] and finally, in 2002, to Network Rail.[43]" move ref so it's not so awkwardly placed.
 * Done <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Link Eurostar in the Eurostar section.
 * Done <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Could also link Gare du Nord and Brussels Midi for consistency.
 * Done <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * CTRL isn't used so ditch it.
 * Done - I was probably thinking of writing more about the CTRL, then didn't. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "There have been few accidents at Waterloo compared to other stations." context? e.g. compared to say Ipswich railway station?
 * What about Shippea Hill? Anyway, from the context of the source this means London terminal stations, so clarified <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "overran beyond its" no need for "beyond".
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " a linesman accidentally" what's a "linesman" here?
 * It's somebody who does the hands on menial work of fixing or replacing the railway lines. There isn't a Wikipedia article for it <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " The engine dropped into the shaft, ending up upside-down and spurting steam everywhere." which shaft and "everywhere"? Sounds like Roald Dahl had a hand in it.
 * Linked shaft (civil engineering) and copyedited. And surely you mean the Revd W Awdry : "The Fat Controller saw Gordon upside-down in the shaft, with steam spurting everywhere, and scolded him: 'You have caused disruption and delay, Gordon, and I will now have to get Edward to run the express to Southampton.' 'Bollocks', said Gordon." <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "two 4COR electric multiple units" what's 4COR? But avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE.
 * Apparently its a British Rail Class 404, which I would have thought was a "page not found" error <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * .... and reverted by - explanation? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Once you two have quit the battle, either way it's still WP:SEAOFBLUE. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reduced it to "electric", since I don't trust the links that were in the prose (I don't have the source given to hand so have to AGF what's in it, and it's not in the book sources I do have here, which only mention more significant accidents). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, deliberately reintroducing a redirect, that's amazing! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And your problem is? The train was a 4COR, what is wrong with linking that? WP:LINKCLARITY, WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:EGG all apply here. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "with an engineers train" presumably an apostrophe is missing here.
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "There are over 130 automated" more than.
 * Done <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ", plus another 27 i" reads poorly, perhaps "in addition to 27..."
 * I've gone with "with another 27" <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't use PCSO before explaining it. Some Brits might get PCSO but most of the rest of the universe won't.
 * Fair point, I assumed people would be more familiar with "PSCO" but it makes sense to define acronyms before you use them. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " 2015/16," should't that just be an en-dash?
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, Britain or the UK?
 * As above, I think sources use both interchangeably as they are effectively the same, but I've gone with "UK" for consistency. (And you never know, Arlene Foster may get the £6bn promised to build High Speed 4 from Glasgow to Belfast International via Stranraer Parkway and the North Channel Tunnel....) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Waterloo railway station alone is the 91st-busiest in the world" needs an "as of".
 * Done <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " sees the most changes" what does that mean?
 * Clarified <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " 1,600 trains per day carrying over 651,000 passengers, " a total of more than... each train doesn't carry "over 651k"....
 * I've gone with "used by over 651,000 passengers" <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * explain tph
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Richmond is a dab.
 * Fixed. I used to think William Hague's constituency was in SW London, but he wasn't. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " Guildford via Cobham[81]," etc, bad ref placement
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "(as detailed above in Mainline)" etc, what?
 * Not a clue. Ask who put it there :-/ <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This was an attempt to make clear that the service had been mentioned before above under the 'mainline' section. i.e. it's a duplication. Feel free to clarify - couldn't think how better to do it myself. Sjoh123 (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " A-D" en-dash.
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't bother piping Greenwich to a redirect which directs back to Greenwich......
 * Should be Greenwich Pier, fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * colloquially known as "The Drain" needs a ref.
 * Jackson's book does mention it, but I've added a TfL source and clarified <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " Baker Street & Waterloo Railway" and, not ampersand.
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "from eight cars to ten." etc. puke. carriages.
 * I live with an American, vive la difference (also fixed) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " as it will entail a substantial " still "would" isn't it?
 * Yup, also removed "which will be a technically complex operation" as it sounds like POV <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Former international platforms" probably needs an update given the recent works and recent disruption.
 * I've added an extra source from last month, but essentially that seems to be it from the news at the moment. Obviously it will need a significant update when the new platforms open in about a year's time <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * BAA is piped to a redirect....
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "connecting London Euston station and " just Euston is fine.
 * Fixed (I probably meant to dab this to Euston, then forgot, though that would also be wrong, so best I didn't) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " The Generation of Alternatives by Jane Boyd" shouldn't the name of the artwork be in italics?
 * Don't see why not <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * " Derek "Del Boy" Trotter " just Del Boy is fine.
 * Although I see that's where the article is, I think non-UK readers, or at least those who don't remember Only Fools and Horses are 42-carat plonkers may be confused as to what "Del Boy" means in this context <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Jerome K. Jerome" be consistent with linking, K. or K
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "In Robert Louis Stevenson & Lloyd Osbourne's " and not ampersand in prose.
 * Fixed (think this was list going to prose) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * War of the Worlds is actually The War of the Worlds.
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Consistent ISBN format please.
 * Done (I think it was just the "further reading", wasn't it?) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That's it from a quick Saturday night run-through. Placing on hold pending resolution of pedant's commentary. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with piping to a redirect? Or if you prefer, which of the GA criteria does this fall foul of? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean, gosh, what a comprehensive and thorough review, the like of which is seldom ever seen at GAN, you're really setting a new standard TRM?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Gosh, what a comprehensive and thorough review, the like of which is seldom ever seen at GAN, you're really setting a new standard TRM .... anyway, all points addressed. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look tomorrow but I am a little concerned over the proto-edit warring to re-introduce complex terms, seaofblue and redirects, if such edits continue then we wouldn't be able to consider this as a stable article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, I think I've raised concerns about this meeting the "stability" part of the GA criteria (although largely because the station has just changed train operator in the last few weeks), which is a shame because it's part of the User:Ritchie333/London termini project and I haven't had a GA actually fail in years. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, anyone else reverts changes suggested by the review here, go ahead and fail the review per WP:WIAGA #5 "Stability" and trout-slap those who helped to fail it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You cannot fail a GA on the grounds that a link goes through a redirect. It is not one of the GA criteria, and as far as I know, never has been, and is not presently proposed to be. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can if people start edit-warring over it and the article becomes unstable owing to a content dispute - though would sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this may need to be paused for a moment, with this Redrose now delibrately including redirects and edit warring to keep terms like 4COR which are meaningless to the average reader. Maybe I'll return to this in a few days when it calms down a little and we can all regain some perspective on what we're trying to achieve here. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 4COR was linked. Your problem with that being? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why insist on linking a redirect of an obscure term? How does that improve our readers' experience?  Anyway, the article is now fully protected and unstable, so this review concludes temporarily.  What a shame, we were on our way to a good piece of work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So it's obscure. Wow, major crime. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia; and so there are many articles which use obscure terms. Isn't that why we link them? The article is about a railway station, and so is bound to include numerous railway terms, several of which will be obscure. Do we remove them all? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'm done responding to such a hostile user. Maybe I'll come back and continue the good work Ritchie and I have put in into these articles at some point in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Waterloo is a well-known London landmark that is known by many people who wouldn't know a British Rail Class 321 from a British Rail Class 390 and aren't at all bothered by that. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ONE is a dusty bin. The other ain't. :) &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  15:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

To refute just one of the many incorrect and hostile claims, i.e. You cannot fail a GA on the grounds that a link goes through a redirect, who talked about failing anything at any point? Perhaps people interjecting here and at the GA criteria page just aren't commensurate with how these reviews work. At not one single point did the word "fail" pass my keyboard. Nor did any threat that failing to meet every single of my review comments would result in a "fail" either. I actually noted in my review that it was an initial pass over the article. There may be shedloads more to do, I just don't know yet, but we're not at the pass/fail gate yet folks, so cool your jets. The concoction of supposed "evidence" that I'm threatening to fail this for any reason is simply laughable. In any case, I have a busy long weekend ahead, kids and all that to entertain from dawn 'til dusk, but I'm hoping to get back to this review as soon as I can, but if my comments are met with more hysteria and hostility then I'll just jack it in and leave it to someone who's clearly more qualified than me to see it to its conclusion, there are plenty of people queueing up to pass this, and I'm sure that'd be just fine by Ritchie. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now things have calmed down and we've been allowed to move on, I've made a few final tweaks and am now satisfied with the article quality, it's a very nice piece of work and wouldn't be too far from FA quality. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What a long old slog - and yes, a positive result of all the other editors popping by and lobbing their 2c in means the article is going to have less problems and be closer to FA. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fewer... ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That assumes "problems" is a quantifiable entity and not some abstract concept :-P <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)