Talk:St Pancras railway station/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 17:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Beginning first read-through. For the Register of Members’ Interests: I have fairly recently shared a drink or two with the nominator, but I don’t think this disqualifies me from reviewing the nomination. More soonest. Tim riley talk 17:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With a bit of luck, there will be a spare piano for me to have a tinkle on there tomorrow evening! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

I'm not going to start an argument about my pet drafting points, as I already know your views on them, and we'll pass over what I think of as Americanisms in the prose. Otherwise, nothing much to complain about. These few thoughts are suggestions rather than demands.

  • Location
    • Speaking on behalf of the 91 bus route I wish to boggle at its omission from the list here. The 30 serves St Pancras too, and so do the 45, 46, 63, 214 and 476. There are also the night bus equivalents of some of these. It seems to me that you should either list all of them or none.
The source in question lists key bus routes, or at least what TfL thinks are important. If you can have 91, why can't you have 17 too? (I've taken it to get to St Pancras so it must be valid) Except it only technically goes near St Pancras despite being announced for it, and then there are a whole bunch of other bus routes that are similar, and so on .... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grouping, nationalisation and privatisation
    • "St Pancras received a significant investment after neglect by the LNWR" – If I correctly read the earlier paragraphs, the LNWR never owned St Pancras, which passed from the MR to the LMS in 1923.
Yup, mistake. Was probably getting confused with LNER which owned next-door King's Cross. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "preventing anyway drastic modifications" - the "anyway" looks very odd here.
Should be "any" - fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Private Eye sentence surprised me. I probably read the piece, but that was forty years ago, and I may misremember. But the Eye was usually dead against greedy and insensitive development and destruction of heritage. It had a column callled "Nooks and corners of the new barbarism" or some such. I wonder if you (or possibly Bradley) have taken ironic, sarcastic "praise" as genuine praise of the idea of knocking the front down. Whatever the case, you shouldn't call the Eye's piece "notorious" unless you're quoting Bradley.
I've removed "notorious" which is probably me thinking "what sort of idiot would demolish a landmark like St Pancras Midland Grand?" and having a long-term soft spot for Eye-esque humour. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuilding
    • "After the blockade" – an unexpected noun, suggesting a siege rather than construction work.
Changed to "When the lines were re-opened" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • International station
    • "one of the most admirable facades" – two points here. First of all "admirable" is a matter of opinion, and not everyone shares this view. You could get away with calling it "one of the most recognisable" or even "one of the most striking". Secondly, is there an MoS policy on the cedilla for façade?
Changed to "recognisable", but if you think "admirable's" slightly POV, here's what Jackson's book says : "St Pancras is a most impressive building ... its structure provides undeniable impact ... it is a beautifully-engineered train shed, one of the finest in the world". As for the cedilla - haven't got a clue. :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hotel
    • "exactly 138 years after its original opening" – you've already told us this, and once seems enough.
Trimmed the first mention - it has more of an impact in the "hotel" section. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Wilde sentence seems to me superfluous. He was only "believed" to have stayed there, and the location was not in any case of any particular importance to the events of his arrest and trial.
This is a long standing in-joke of mine to name-check Oscar Wilde in every London-based article; however I cannot disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate this point, and since a straight "oscar wilde st pancras" search brings up very little, I fear I will have to defer to your view that it is off-topic and should go. (The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde is also a controversial source, and while this isn't really controversial - just out of scope - that just gives us another reason to remove it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all by way of comment from me. Though I'm no expert on transport articles this one seems to me more FA than GA standard, and I'd enjoy seeing it taken further. But for now, if you will consider the above few points we can quickly press on to promotion to GA. I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold unless you'd prefer me to do so. Tim riley talk 18:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all the issues, and also just had a quick final copyedit. The article has had a lot of serious work from several editors before I gave it the final "spit and polish", so I'm not too surprised there isn't too much wrong with it. As for FAC - maybe one day; I just tend to find I can write 10 GAs in the same time as 1 FA, which gives the encyclopedia more "bang for the buck". Or something like that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm still uneasy about how the Private Eye article is reported, and I think I'll order the 1978 archive copies when I'm next at the British Library and stick my oar into the article if necessary. For now I'll content myself with promoting the piece to GA. Tim riley talk 20:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for a quick review. Let me know if you need any review done at your end. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Pancras_railway_station/GA1&oldid=1137201258"