Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 19:59, 11 September 2008.

Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway

 * Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk)
 * previous FAC 03:57, 12 June 2008

I'm re-nominating this article for featured article because it is a companion to the existing featured article City and South London Railway. All previous comments are, I believe now addressed in the current version. DavidCane (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All images are freely licensed and meet all other FA criteria requirements. —Giggy 10:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Prose needs a good massage. And the lead looks as though it's been stripped back to save room; bit jerky and stubby in the flow of the sentences and the ideas. Here are examples in just the lead; the whole article needs a good work-over by someone new to it.
 * It was actually shorter before but the peer review (here) suggested it should be made longer. I'm not a great fan of long leads but one thing I can see was missing is the discussion of financial difficulties and under achievement against passenger targets. I've added something for that and regrouped the sentences into three paragraphs which deal with the origins, physical aspects and financial. --DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Established in 1891, construction of the CCE&HR was delayed for more than a decade whilst funding was sought." You need the year of establishment in the first sentence, applying to the company, I suppose; at the moment, it's the construction that was established in 1891.
 * Fixed. Previous redrafting here created the false ellipsis. --DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "The UERL quickly raised the funds needed; mainly from foreign investors."—oops, remove "needed" and change the semicolon to a plain comma.
 * Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Various routes were planned although a number of these were rejected by Parliament." First, a comma before "although" would be nicer; second, is it a clear contrast? Not as obvious or strong a contrast as "although" conveys. What about "Various routes were planned, a number of them subsequently rejected by Parliament." Unsure; your call.
 * I've dialled-back "although" to "but" which I think does the job. I haven't used "subsequently" as it's implicit that the rejection was after the planning. --DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Tunnels under Hampstead Heath, opposed by many local residents who believed they would damage the heath's ecology, were allowed." Clunky to have the "were allowed" lost at right at the end. "Plans for tunnels under Hampstead Heath were passed, despite opposition by many local residents who believed they would damage the ecology of the heath." And can you find a better word than my "passed"?
 * Agreed, was a bit awkward, the result again of previous copyediting I think. I've used your suggestion with "authorised" in place of "passed" --DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "a pair of tunnels"—add "parallel"?
 * I've not added parallel. The tunnels on the tube aren't always parallel with their pair, sometimes running at different levels or on different alignments to suit requirements.--DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Extensions in 1914 and the mid-1920s took the railway to Edgware and under the River Thames to Kennington, serving a distance of 22.84 kilometres (14.19 mi) and 23 stations." Good, except perhaps "serving 23 stations over a distance of 22.84 kilometres (14.19 mi)" would be better, yes?
 * No problem. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Use passive voice only there's some point in doing so; here, I've retained it, but it's clearer in meaning: "In the 1920s, connections were made to another of London's deep-level tube railways,..."—clunky. "In the 1920s, the route was physically connected to another of London's deep-level tube railways,...". Tony   (talk)  11:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PS "Railway" and "London": why linked. Please see MOSLINK and CONTEXT. Tony  (talk)  11:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Still have concerns about http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/index.htm being a reliable source.
 * Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I've got it in a book somewhere but just can't find it. I've deleted the sentence and the link as it's just an aside really.--DavidCane (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you find it in your books, feel free to readd. All done here! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments : I thought at its last FAC that this article was getting close to FA standard. With the various improvements that have been incorporated it is now a very solid piece of work, informative and meticulously researched, I'm close to a support, but there are a few things I'd like sorting out. Most of these are minor, one is more significant.
 * Minor prose issues
 * In the lead, is it necessary to say the route was "physically" connected to another? Could it have been connected in any other way?
 * Ah, that was suggested it the comments above. I think your right, "physically" is implied by the circumstances and context. I've taken it out. --DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also in lead, "over optimistic" is normally a hyphenated term.
 * Agreed. Changed the two in the text and the one in footnote 18.--DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The two paragraphs just under the "Establishment" heading form a subsection, and should have a title - "Background" or some such (all my articles have Background sections).
 * Done. I've gone with "Origin, 1891-1893" which seems to fit with the chonological nature of the other headings.--DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Hampstead Heath controversy section you have 200 ft and 240 feet in the same para. I know the second figure is in a quote, but I think there should be consistency - could both become "feet"? This would happen automatically if you use the convert template.
 * Done. Well spotted. I do usually use the convert template so I'm not sure why this one wasn't formatted that way.--DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the same section, Heath is capitalised in the first para, not in 3rd and 4th paras. I think it is customary to refer to Hampstead Heath as the Heath - with the capital.
 * Done. I did think about that when I wrote the section and decided that as it was using heath in a slightly more general term it shouldn't be capitalised but, there is only the one heath and, as you say, it is "the Heath" for its users. It will look consistent with just one style. --DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Opening (the section called this): the last words of the section should read "1906 stock or Gate stock" as these are the alternative terms.
 * Done.--DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Co-op and consolidation: that hyphen again - over-optimistic.
 * Done.--DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Same section - shouldn't it be improvement in passenger numbers rather than improvement in passengers?
 * Yes. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hendon and Edgware: "wartime" is a single word that does not have a hyphen.
 * Done. --DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Issue with the chart: I am referring to the one in the "Opening" section. It looks beautiful, but I am confused by it.
 * Why is it in the "Opening" section when it seems to cover much later developments?
 * I see what you mean. It was one of the first things I added to the article when I started rewriting it and I think it has just sat in place as the text moved around it. It really belongs in the extensions section so I've moved it there. I have moved the Tufnell Park station image down to fill the blank space that this leaves to the right of the list of original stations and I have moved the Brent Cross picture to the left.--DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The chart is over-complicated by the "legend" link, which takes me to a different chart, in a different colour, and no immediate connection between the two. Isn't it possible to explain the main chart in a simpler way?
 * The target page for the legend seems to have been developed since I last looked at it and it does seem a bit complicated and inappropriate. Basically, blue lines are for light rail or metro systems and red for main line services (but as we don't have any of the latter its not very helpful). Pale line or dots are closed routes or stations and dashed ones are underground. The legend is a standard component of the transcluded templates that make up the route diagram box but I will see if there is a way to turn it off and and a simplified alternative which can be used covering just the appropriate symbols. --DavidCane (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to having your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Re. the chart: my guess is that if the legend link is a component of the template, it can't be disabled, though there are some clever people around. As a minimum, would you be able to precede the chart by some brief text which dates the chart (1926 I believe), and explains the differentiation between tunnel and overground? Explaining the different types of station isn't so important - readers can easily deduce which are termini or interconnections. To my mind that amount of text would be enough; the legend link stays but there's no need to use it. Do you think that is possible? Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've managed to disable the legend and have added a date note at the top and a key to the bottom of the table which indicates the meaning of the symbols. --DavidCane (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done indeed. You have dealt with all the issues that concerned me, and I am happy to support (as indicated above). Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. --DavidCane (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed this and am glad to see how it has improved since. I think it meets all of the FA criteria now, well done Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Support for a comprehensive, well-written and engaging article. I have to take the train from Euston to Colindale once in a while and now, unbelievably, I'm looking forward to my next trip; such a fascinating article, brilliantly researched, well done. Allow me just one nit-pick, this: Various routes were planned but a number of these were rejected by Parliament from the Lead is so vague. Graham Colm Talk 09:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.