Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baker Street and Waterloo Railway/archive1


 * 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010.

Baker Street and Waterloo Railway

 * Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this article because I believe it covers its subject fully and meets the standard required to be included amongst the set of featured. It is a companion to the featured articles City and South London Railway, Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway and Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway. DavidCane (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments 1b/c: Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not reply here until now as I felt that the comments below adequately covered my concerns in such a self-evident manner that to note it would be superfluous. All my concerns have been adequately addressed. :) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming. I didn't want to assume that everything was OK, if there was something I had missed. --DavidCane (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about the status of Capital Transport as a vanity publisher, due to their website, their lack of an editorial or submissions policy, and Rose being acknowledged in World Cat as the publisher for "Rose, Douglas (1999). The London Underground, A Diagrammatic History. Douglas Rose/Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-219-4." The impact of sourcing an article so significantly from sources published by a vanity publisher would be to undermine its status in terms of 1b/c.
 * Although most of the books in the references list are published by Capital Transport, the company is not a vanity publisher, but a small specialist publisher on transport subjects - particularly those in London. A number of the books used for the article are published in association with the London Transport Museum (Horne's The Bakerloo Line - An Illustrated History, Day and Reed's The Story of London's Underground and Connor's London's Disused Underground Stations) and they are all sold by the museum's shop and in larger bookshops with specialist transport sections (for example, Waterstone's in Piccadilly). I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the museum and Waterstone's would only be selling these titles if they were considered to be good quality works.--DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about a source reliance stemming from Capital Transport publications separate to the status of the publisher. What other monographs of the tube system exist?  Journal Articles from history of technology and science / engineering?
 * I don't think the fact that they have the same publisher has any particular relevance to the coverage of the subject matter within the books themselves. There have been many books published on the London Underground - Wolmar lists nearly fifty which he used as source materials for his book which covers the whole system, including a couple of the others used directly here. The books used are all recent editions and are effectively a distillation of the primary and secondary sources available to the authors. With regards to technological/engineering issues, I have tried to avoid including much on these matters except in the construction section and have provided wiki-links to relevant articles on tunnelling shields, caissons, etc. which cover these subjects in more detail. --DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that the extensive use of the London Gazette indicates that a High Quality Reliable Source may not have been used to establish the narrative / weighting of the article; and subsequently sections of the Gazette have been cherry picked to establish a historical narrative that may be substantially Original Research, ie "With the extension to Paddington still under construction, the LER published a bill in November 1911 for the continuation to Queen's Park.[80] => [80] ^ London Gazette: no. 28552, pp. 8615–8620, 21 November 1911. Retrieved on 2009-11-07." Some of these uses are clear, but in some the passing of an act is being used to imply that substantive things happened in the real world.
 * In most cases the London Gazette references are used to provide a direct primary source link to the actual bill that Badsey Ellis has referred to in his book as he has generally referred to the actual primary documents themselves and describes the planned route and station locations in his narrative. In the specific example above, ref [80] is not provided to support the introductory "With the extension to Paddington still under construction," bit, just the date of the bill's introduction. The fact that the extension to Paddington was under construction at the time is covered by ref [76] and ref [55] in the last paragraph of the previous section which states that construction began in August 1911 and was completed with the opening of the station in December 1913. --DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you could satisfy these concerns are groundless, it would be wonderful. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name
 * No dab links or dead external links. Double-check that the five galegroup Times links work (they require registration so I can't).
 * Access to the Times links on infotrac is often available via membership of local public libraries in the UK.--DavidCane (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Alt text : The large images all have some, but the bottom navbox and the images that make up the diagram in section "Opening" don't have it. The diagram's images need alts because they aren't purely decorative and give more info on the represented stops. is vastly improved and looks good. (updated on 16:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Not sure this is going to be possible without a complete rewrite of the BSicon templates which is unlikely to happen easily or soon. The diagram is a visual representation of what's in the text anyway and I am not sure that it would be very useful to an unsighted reader as I expect that a screen reader will read left to right across a row rather than up down. I will see if there is a way to make a screen reader skip this diagram. --DavidCane (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically possible, but in reality impractical. The map is created by WP:ROUTE which uses many icon images to comprise the whole map. Forcing alt description text into the diagram means that you need to input each desciption for each icon, in the case of Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, you'll have to repeat the same text >50 times. Ultimately the ineffectiveness to display a proper alt text from WP:ROUTE diagram shouldn't challenge the qualificaition of the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, adding alt text is both possible and practical, and I've demonstrated this for the diagram in question; please see Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template . This shouldn't require any change to Baker Street and Waterloo Railway or to BS&WR route map. Eubulides (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've dug into the navbox to add alt text for the image there --DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 01:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Use a consistent style for ref dates. Compare e.g. refs 81 and 88.  Consider using one format for all dates in citations.
 * I think 88 and 89 were different because they were copied over from one of the companion articles. Changed all retrieved dates to full UK style date.--DavidCane (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have fixed many of the alt text issues noted in the previous comment by to Bakerloo line navbox and by  to Rail-interchange. However, the diagram at the start of the Opening section still generates dozens of images that lack alt text. This diagram is generated by BS&WR route map, which uses BS3, which in turn uses BS-overlap to generate the problematic images. BS-overlap uses Superimpose to generate the image, but neglects to pass the base_alt parameter to Superimpose so the images are displayed without alt text. Can you please fix this? BS-overlap is undocumented, and BS3's documentation is quite cryptic, so I'm reluctant to charge in and fix this stuff myself. Eubulides (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the diagram's alt text will be fixed at the template level; see Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template . Eubulides (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * This ref http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1949.html ... is it out of copyright? In other words, are we linking to a copyright violation here?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead page for the site here states that the images are used with permission of the London Transport Museum.
 * As the map was produced for the London Transport Executive, which was in public ownership as part of the nationalised British Transport Commission, it is arguable that the image would be covered by Crown Copyright much as an Ordnance Survey Map would be. For a map published in 1949, this would have expired in 1999.--DavidCane (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

''' Oppose. ''' (1) Text on maps unreadable. (2) Images mostly tiny. I've boosted the size of some of the pics, so you may wish to audit the placement. (3) The prose could do with an independent copy-edit—not a long job, though. Tony  (talk)  14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The maps: I think you created them, so can you massively increase the size of the text? The year range should have an unspaced en dash in the first one (see MOSDASH). I've boosted the px size of the Baker Street excerpt below, but the text is still too small, and most of the image is just white space. Same for the others. I'm not sure a real photo (Oxford Circus station? The temporary pier?) wouldn't be better in the lead, with the current lead map further down, centred, and larger (i.e., not squeezing text at all—even now, it squeezes). The 1906 Gate pic is tiny AND squeezes text (a breach of MoS).
 * I will see what I can do about the sizes of the maps and the text they contain. I want to keep the text size in the route progression maps consistent from one to another so that the scale can be maintained.
 * I was trying not to force the image sizes, but will be happy to make the gate stock one bigger. If it is moved after the text in the section with a afterwards, I think it will stop the pinching.
 * I would like to keep the main map at the top because it gives more of a sense of the article than the pier and the Oxford tube station pictures that only relate to a small aspect of the story. --DavidCane (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Example of copy-editing needed, in the lead: "fraud" could be "fraudulent behaviour" ... unsure. "It" refers to Whitaker or LGFC or BS? "connected with" would avoid "to" x 3. Remove "covering"? "In 1933, it and the rest ..."—this is awkward.
 * I think fraud is more appropriate; "fraudulent behaviour" seems a bit equivocal
 * "It" is the BS&WR.
 * Think I've got all the rest.
 * Iridescent provided some comments before it came to FAC. Thanks. --DavidCane (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, my eyesight is pretty good, and I have great difficulty reading the text for the station names. There's a lot of white space, so why can't the font-size be bigger? "1906–33" or "1906–1933", with unspaced en dash, not spaced hyphen. Hands up anyone here who can make out a single word in the key. What is the point? I suspect the point is that you're expected to click to get full res (it's rather too full, actually); this is hard for people with slow connections, and inconvenient for everyone. The alt text could be a little more descriptive. The caption might just say "Map of the Baker Street & Waterloo Railway route and its extension over nearly three decades". But being able to read the key is critical to the colour and line coding on the map; the key should be a rectangle, tallish, with font-size twice the current. If it can't fit along the left side, put it in the sea of white on the right? Tony  (talk)  12:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Text in all maps has now been increased by 63%. How does that look? --DavidCane (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Cough) David, you've reverted back to the West Coast Main Line and not the DC Line... – iride  scent  02:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just testing! I've got too many versions on my hard drive and used the wrong one. Now fixed.--DavidCane (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by Support assuming the issue regarding the maps is sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. As David says above,my concerns regarding this were all resolved here. – irides cent 2  17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I read this ages ago, then forgot about it, Reread today, happy to support  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Leaning to Support: I think the maps are now fine, and so is the prose. I continue to be impressed by the extent of industry and research which is behind these railway articles, and look forward to giving this latest one my full support. The issue holding me back at the moment is that of the PD status of three of the images. I am not an expert image reviewer, my comments being based on my understanding of advice I have received in the past. I hope an expert will come soon and clear the matter up :-
 * Whittaker Wright: when was this image first published? My understanding is that the 70-year rule applies to unpublished works, and if the image was not published before 1923 then it may not be PD in the USA.
 * The Whitaker Wright image is by Harry Furniss who died in 1925. Wright killed himself in 1904 following the famous trial. The Badsey-Ellis book, from which the image was scanned, ascribes the source to the National Portrait Gallery. The NPG page for the image (which I couldn't find when I made the scan) indicates that it is from a set titled "Prominent men: drawings by Harry Furniss, circa 1880-1910". It therefore seems likely that it was published before Wright's death and no later than 1910. --DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Prominent men: drawings by Harry Furniss, circa 1880-1910" is not a publication but a database created by the NPG for Furniss's sketches. This image is likely a draft of Furniss's caricatures.  I would advise not using it because of the 20-year publication rights (of previously unpublished works) in the UK that comes into effect even if the image would be PD due to 70-year-pma.  Use the finished product in Harry Furniss at Home (Google or Internet Archive), which is undeniably PD-1923 (for US) and commons:Template:PD-UK-known (for UK).  Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, Thanks for finding that. I will upload the original 3 caricature image from the Harry Furniss at Home book and a crop of just whitaker to replace the existing image.--DavidCane (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jetty picture: Similar problem - when was it first published? Additionally, you are claiming that the author has been dead for 70+ years, but we can't assume this since we don't know who he/she was. A photographer aged 25 in 1896 would only have been 69 in 1940.
 * I'm pretty sure that I uploaded the image with the same copyright tag as the gate stock image below, e.g. undefined, but as it has been moved to commons, I cannot check this. Mike Horne's book gives no source information, so apart from the approximate date it is impossible to identify any other information on its origin or if it was published at the time. I'm quite happy to remove it if that is thought to be the solution.--DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Brian is correct here. You need to know who is the author and be verifiably certain he is dead beyond 70 years to use any 70-year-pma tag.  Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it from the article.--DavidCane (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gates Stock: I am not sure that PD in the USA is covered by the existing licence information.
 * Mike Horne's book from which this was scanned has no source information for the image. The uploaded version does not appear in the London Transport Museum photographic archive, though this untouched version appears to be the original from which it was created. It is ascribed to an unknown photographer and dated 1906. The retouching of the rivets and the painting out of the background is indicative that it was prepared for publication, probably for the Bakerloo line's opening in 1906. If it was published in 1906, it would be in the public domain now --DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The image used in this article is not a retouched version of the London Transport Museum photographic archive link provided&mdash;observe the differences in positioning of the car's windows in the background, which implies the images were taken at different distances. It would be needed to find out from whom or where did Mike Horne get his photos from, and whether they fall into the public domain or was he given permission/license to publish them.  Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Windows are slightly different as if the photographer took two shots from slightly different positions. I will remove from article. --DavidCane (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I await the verdict of one better informed than me. User:Awadewit might be persuaded to take a look. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did make a request that Awadewit have a look at these, but she has declined as she is not reviewing images at the moment. Hopefully, my answers above can help someone else make a decision on this matter.--DavidCane (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Jappalang is extremely knowledgeable on images, and usually very helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jappalang has already commented above.--DavidCane (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed his comments which, together with your responses, remove my concerns about images. I have moved to full support - sorry it's taken so long but I've been busy, been away blah blah blah... Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments on your Images (just to annoy you!!) I was ready through the article and it's all very good, but going through the images it can get a bit confusing as to what the new stations that were rejected/accepted were&mdash;It involves a lot of scrolling back and forth between previous sections and the current section. Would it be possible (if you don't have a problem with it) for the images to contain some easy to recognise distinction? maybe colour the station's red for rejected and green for accepted from the previous image in the article. So the second image would have Marylebone in green (or whatever) and the third image would have Hampstead Road and Euston and St George's Circus through Old Kent Road as red (or whatever). Or maybe you could have the current route slightly faded or some other way of distinction. Just my AUD$0.02 and if you think I'm a nutter then so be it! Sanguis Sanies (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the images as supplementary to the text, which carries the detail of how the routes developed, and would prefer to keep them as simple as possible. Adding different colours or tones to the images would require an explanatory key that would, of necessity require the image dimensions boxes to be enlarged, potentially crowding the space on the page. --DavidCane (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Support Sanguis Sanies (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.