Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney


 * 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney
Self-nomination: I've done a fair bit of work on this article in recent weeks; it has gone through a peer review (see here and I've received some helpful feedback. Since this is one of the first times an individual railway line has been up for FAC it's a bit hard to know what to expect, but comparing it to other FA articles I feel that it should be up to standard. This is my first FAC, so please feel free to comment if there's something I can improve on. Thanks. JROBBO 11:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support: Thought I should vote since I've caught the trains so often in my life. Comprehensive, easy to read. Neutral. referenced. Satisfies all criteria, but lacks something somehow which I can't put my finger on. (Looks much different/better/more interesting since the nomination began!) Maybe just the subject matter (never was a trainspotter). Anyway I can see you've put a heap of work into it and I think it ultimately deserves to get over the line :) Cas Liber 12:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Being a person who catches train regularly, but putting railfan knowledge aside, I'd have to say that this article meets all criteria for an article as obscure as a rail line, is neutral and is properly referenced. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It seems thorough and well-referenced with a good selection of images. The prose is functional but perhaps could be more compelling (I don't have an actionable complaint; it's just a general impression). In particular, the description of the line's route seems a little clumsy. There's also a switch from using "km" to "kilometres" at one point, is there a reason? Still, on the whole it seems very good. Trebor 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for the change in "km" to "kilometres" - I did attempt to change it earlier but the database got locked while I was in the middle of an edit. I'll change them all to the full wording, which is the preferred style. JROBBO 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that the full wording is the preferred style (I'm not doubting you, I'm just surprised)? Trebor 20:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it was a suggestion on the automated thing in the peer review... even if it's not the preferred style, consistency is good, so I'll go and change them all. JROBBO 08:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak object (changed to support, see below) - The main problem with this article is that it contains just too much boring stuff. I think the potential is there, the article just needs a serious trimming down, and perhaps a rewording in the lead section.  Overall though, good job with the article. Here are a few suggestions:
 * The lead should be rewritten in a way that makes it more interesting, capturing the user's interest. The first sentence, although possibly redundant, should actually state that this is a railway line, and not that is located in Sydney, Australia.  The rest of the lead should also be copyedited to avoid run-on sentences and make it flow better.
 * Much much better now . — Mets501 (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Alignment section should be greatly shortened. It is really unnecessary to say that one line starts underground, makes a left here, makes a right there, makes another left there, goes underground there, reemerges there, makes a right there, and then ends there.  Perhaps just a basic overview of where a few stations are for each line and perhaps the fact that they are mainly underground would make the section better.
 * I disagree; this could be very useful for someone who knows Sydney but not the line. It also gives a good idea of what the line is like and what highways it "competes with". --NE2 05:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not crazy about three headings in a row without text in between. It looks odd and makes the table of contents super-long.
 * I've got rid of the two main line construction headers. JROBBO 12:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the sentences are too short ("However, Stephens encountered difficulties with terrain" is too short), and some too long.
 * Try to avoid such extensive use of the passive voice (see English passive voice). Sometimes it's unavoidable, but sometimes the active voice would be more appropriate.  An example is "Woolooware Station is planned to be upgraded to increase capacity on the Cronulla Line.", where it would be more appropriate to state who is planning to upgrade it (that sentence sounds awkward as it is, anyway).
 * Is the Stopping patterns sections really necessary? Isn't that information already in the table directly above it?
 * Semi-colons would really be useful in many places.  ("Many of the projects on the Plan are for other lines; however, the Illawarra Line has received several projects to upgrade its capacity.") — Mets501 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak object The dates in refs are not wikilinked and not in a format that displays per use prefs. It's easy to do if you use the accessdate=2007-01-22 and it's less typing as you don't then have to use date and year separately.Rlevse 15:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me where it says dates in refs need to be wikilinked? I understand your concern, but they don't really add anything to the article. JROBBO 07:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you, it's a superfluous pain in the ass...BUT...Criteria 2, responding to the Manual of Style under its policy regarding the use of dates and numbers, and a few other places mandate it. It is not an explicit exemption to the rule (there are a couple), so it's required solely to make sure that 22 January shows up as January 22 for those who like it that way and set their user preferences. I quote: If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 08:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the article and wikilinked most of the dates in the references. Harryboyles 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support now. Wikilink dates also link to the calendar articles, but you're not supposed to link solo years. ExplorerCDT is just being a pain himself on this whole FAC.Rlevse 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OBJECT STRENUOUSLY OBJECT (See below. Jist of it: Nominators and contributors to FAC refuse to do actionable repairs and seek to avoid doing the work by making b.s. excuses.).  Writing is neither brilliant nor compelling per 1(a). &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Care to explain further? --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Same question as Arnzy - objections need to be actionable. Trebor 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The FA criteria demands that it be well-written with the prose being brilliant and compelling. The writing is bland, and uninteresting. Nothing in the writing captivates a reader. I think my above comment was sufficient, but if you can't get the drift, the article's prose is horribly boring. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Decorum suggests something more respectful, and more specific, than "horribly boring". ExplorerCDT, your comments are horribly boring. See? – Outriggr § 04:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I could have said the prose plain "sucks" but I think saying that this is far from brilliant and compelling was enough. You asked for more, and I did everything but say that it sucks. Why ask for more if you can't take it? &mdash;ExplorerCDT 07:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you at least make some suggestions on what I could do? This is my first FAC, so I would find it helpful for the future if you could say something a bit more than "it is far from brilliant and compelling" - where is it bad? What sections/sentences in particular? JROBBO 07:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Innumerable grammar problems. This article needs a heavy dose of copyediting.  The use of too many pronouns (especially "it") without specific connections. The prose is just wholly uninteresting, and bland.  I can't see giving examples, because the entire thing is so dry.  Good writing has a spark that makes a reader want to finish this article.  This article I had to struggle to finish.  You have sentences like this: The line is four tracks between Wolli Creek Junction and Hurstville, then tracks between Hurstville and Waterfall. Sutherland has a third platform for the Cronulla Line. that make me cringe and then ask: SO WHAT?  That is what makes this article "horribly boring".  Other considerations.  You wikilink many things in the references section.  Bad.  It confuses me (and likely others) into thinking you're referencing external links.  Wikilink the article body as much as you want, but not the references.  Many of the references are incomplete, lacking publishing information, ISBNs, and author information. Also, remove the size/pixel parameters from thumbnail images to accomodate user preferences, and to comply with WP:IUP. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 08:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I take your point about the writing - however, like other criticisms, it mainly concentrates on the first section (the "Alignment" section), which needs fixing - I think this makes it the problem - once you've read that, you don't want to read any more. Secondly, the references are as complete as the information is provided - most of my sources are published by a government or other related corporation and don't have authors explicitly mentioned,; when the publisher or author is not mentioned, or they are the same, there's no point in listing the superfluous information; the websites listed don't have any more information than I can get either. Furthermore, as they are privately published documents, there's no ISBN listed either. Thirdly, on many other pages that I have looked at the authors or publishers, where there is an appropriate wikilink, are linked to that page (take a look at MTR or Singapore MRT, both Featured Articles). I really can't do anything about this. I spent a long time looking for sources, and there isn't anything else on this sort of thing. But I will fix up the writing. JROBBO 08:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comparing this article to other FAs can be problematic, because many older FAs (especially those from 2004-2005) haven't been reviewed since then, often have had many edits since being named an FA that could have diminished the quality of the article, and certainly would not pass when tested in the crucible of the present criteria. For instance, MTR would probably fail an FAC today or receive several objections requiring repairs because it is not adequately referenced and far too many facts go uncited.  FA is determined about how well this article meets the criteria, not how it matches up to another article. The references need to be fixed.  No question or excuses about it.  If you can't find an ISBNs (which I doubt you even searched hard for ISBNs...try searching through amazon.com), state "NO ISBN" and a reason why (like saying "NO ISBN (Pre-1964)" for things published before ISBNs were started, or "NO ISBN (privately published)" if that were the case)  If you can't find an author, complete the reference by stating No further authorship information available..  Don't just leave it unquantified.  Many of these references don't even state basic publishing information and that is just unacceptable.  Providing full references allows others to check your work. As to your protest about my criticism to get rid of the wikilinking references.  References should be linking to those things outside wikipedia that you are using to support the article's statements.  You do not support an article's statements by referencing other articles within Wikipedia.  Please remove the superfluous wikilinking in the referencing. Making excuses, and refusing to make these actionable (and by the MOS, guidelines and policies) necessary fixes will likely result in this article getting failed as an FA in spite of your protestations, and I will likely move from just objecting to strenuously objecting to this article's candidacy. Lastly, the problem with the writing isn't just the first section. My criticism about its dryness is regarding the entire article, not just the first section.  Another note, the failure to put in a grid or something to delineate the cells in the table for much of the dotted sections in the middle of the table makes it difficult to read and use. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "You do not support an article's statements by referencing other articles within Wikipedia" - can you please tell me where I'm doing that? All I'm saying is that the articles in question are written or published by that organisation or source.JROBBO 10:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care. What part of don't wikilink other articles in the references and thereby confuse people into thinking it's an external link to an external source don't you understand? There's no reason the note that reads: Sydney Tramway Museum, "Our Vintage Tram Routes", Railpage Australia. Accessed 11 January 2007. should link to Wikipedia's article on Sydney Tramway Museum. It should only direct a reader to the external source, not to an article on wikipedia. When the article does that it confuses readers into thinking they're clicking on a link to an external resource. Stop trying explaining yourself and just fix it. I'm not here to hold your hand through it. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 11:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why does Template:Harvard reference have a parameter for "authorlink" to allow linking to the author's name? If this sort of thing is prohibited as you say, that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed. The fact is that this kind of thing is allowed. I'll change it, but I think you're being overly picky. JROBBO 11:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ExplorerCDT, I think the links to other Wikipedia articles are fine. You may notice that external links have an arrow clearly denoting themselves as such, if that helps prevent confusion. There is to include a wikilink (and as JROBBO says, there's even a field for it on some templates) because it allows you to find out about the author and publisher of the information. The style guidelines on WP:FOOTNOTE say "Internal links should still be used as normal". Is there any guideline that supports your view? If not, then your bluntness is unmerited. Trebor 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked out "Stations and tracks / compiled by J.H. Forsyth" at State Library of New South Wales catalogue. It is spiral bound and doesn't have an ISBN. That doesn't mean it can't be used as a reference in Wilkipedia, as appears to be asserted by ExplorerCDT.  Nevertheless, I'm not sure if the Note citations need to repeat everything in the References, it would probably just be better to say "Forsyth (1988–93), p216"--Grahamec 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not say at any time that a source without an ISBN was unuseable. I said a cited source ought to have an ISBN (or ISSN) to be a complete citation or reference. If it's privately published I would like to see NO ISBN (privately published) (as the specific source you mention above now does) next to the source for the sake of completeness. If you're going to critique my points, at least get them right. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 01:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Other works by Forsyth also published by the State Rail Authority of New South Wales have ISBN numbers, I find it highly unlikely and would be surprised if the work cited here by Forsyth, with the same publisher, would be lacking them. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 01:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In Australia, by law under the Copyright Act 1968 all books which have ISBNs in them are obliged to have them on one of the first few pages, or on the back cover (much like the Library of Congress rules which require a succinct summary in them at the front). If they don't have one written on it you can be pretty sure it's privately published. I have the book here with me and I've had a thorough look through it - there is no ISBN there. JROBBO 07:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm getting mixed up with book deposit. Forget the above. JROBBO 08:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Library of Congress does not "require" anything. A book catalogued by the LOC can (at the publisher's sole discretion) include a full bibliographic summary, write the line "Cataloguing data available from the the Library of Congress" or just put the Library of Congress Control Number or its classification number. Nothing is "required". The British Library, likewise, does not have any such "requirement." I just find it highly unlikely that if this organization has published (even privately) previous books of Forsyths with ISBNs, that his subsequent works would be ISBNless. Also, I would advise you to stop bullshitting. The Copyright Act 1968 does not have the words "International Source Book Number" or "ISBN" in the entire corpus of its text (See here, , and ). If you're going to find an excuse to avoid doing work (especially searching for information), at least find an excuse that isn't so easily debunkable. Half-assed shortcuts is what makes this article not worthy of inclusion amongst Featured Articles. If you're going to try to bullshit me, at least do it in a subject I don't know anything about. Unfortunate for you, it just happens to be that I've done a lot of work in publishing and have a lot of connections in publishing...and if you would have just not made any excuses or asked nicely, I might have taken a look for ISBNs on your behalf. Not a chance now. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 07:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind of the WP:CIVIL guidelines when presenting your thoughts. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still looking for an answer as to where in the style guidelines it says "don't use wikilinks in references". I, for one, would much prefer them to be included so I can get a basic précis of the author and publisher of the source. Trebor 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In general it looks good, though I'm not a good judge of writing.
 * It could use a map, or at least a prominent link to an official map showing the line. This would make it much easier to follow along.
 * "The line is four tracks between Wolli Creek Junction and Hurstville, then tracks between Hurstville and Waterfall." There's a missing word.
 * Image:RNPLineRepresentation.png could easily be replaced with a more useful free map.
 * I'm not sure that "Pattern stops at this station" is encyclopedic. What is the history of these service patterns? Are they changed every few years or are they long-term?
 * For now, no vote. --NE2 05:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The pattern stops are just showing how the line operates and how trains run on it. Some of the London Underground line pages have them, and quite a few in Australia too - and no one has ever objected to these. I'm happy to get rid of the duplication by removing the dots and adding historical information on the stations, but I think it's ok if we leave them in there. JROBBO 07:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm objecting now - as much as I love "railcruft", I think showing exactly which trains stop where goes a bit far, especially if you don't know how often those patterns change. On a rapid transit system, where these patterns may be long-established, it may be different (for instance the 1/9 skip-stop patterns on the New York City Subway), and this may be the case here, but Wikipedia is supposed to be "timeless" and cover both the past and the present, and if you don't know how often these patterns change it's probably best to leave them out. --NE2 08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Although a couple of trains might change every timetable (given that CityRail isn't a metro line), these are usually the exceptions - on here at least, the stopping patterns don't change all that much except when there's major changes to the timetable. This line is very unlikely to have any major changes to it, since there's no lines planned to connect to it or any major capacity changes apart from the Cronulla Branch, but it's probable that all trains on the branch will continue to use all stations there. Having said that, it's probably possible to condense the information into a sentence or two about how it currently operates rather than a whole section. JROBBO 08:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How's this for a general idea: "All trains run from the Bondi Junction end and serve all stops to Sydenham. Trains that continue as locals, stopping at most or all stations, terminate at Hurstville, Mortdale, Sutherland, or Waterfall, while all Cronulla trains skip a number of intermediate stations on their way to the split at Sutherland." Do all the stations on the four-track section have only two side plaforms, or are there islands to serve the express tracks? --NE2 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I find the stopping pattern diagrams colourful and somewhat interesting. I wouldn't expect them to appeal to all tastes, but I don't expect every part of every article to appeal to all tastes.--Grahamec 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (and I admit I have been collecting Sydney railway timetables for 45 years--Grahamec 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I find it to be trivial, and I'm a fan of transit operations. But it might be useful to keep it in a toned-down style, like by showing which stations are served by almost all trains (a local-express style setup?), especially if these general patterns have been historically stable. --NE2 16:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This has gone now, so there's no need to keep addressing this point. JROBBO 02:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - I think the concerns that I raised above have been dealt with, and I am very comfortable with this being a featured article. This is also under the assumption that something will be done with the Alignment section, but I have confidence in that considering the other great work that JROBBO has done with this article.  Also, aside from this vote, if I may say so, I find it imperative that all featured article candidates are given much respect for spending hours and hours trying to help Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, no matter how bad one may think that the article is, and that constructive criticism be given by all oppose voters. — Mets501 (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I was impressed the first time I read this article and it has improved further. The oppose above seems petty and inactionable. michael talk 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm kinda busy so I'll give a full judgement sometime in the next few days. I've wikilinked most, if not all, dates in references per a criticism above, plus a few minor fixes. I also noticed that with references 63, 67, and 68, that the italics seem  not to be closed properly, making the references ill-formatted. Harryboyles 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: JROBBO has spent a great deal of time fixing up this article, and it looks a lot better than it did prior to JROBBO's recent edits. - Vicer 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Another reason to continue my above objection...aesthetically unbalanced lead now that the article has a left-aligned image (ESI_map.png) after the first paragraph of the lead, forcing the lead text and table of contents to funnel narrowly into the center of the page because of how it competes for space with the the right- and top-aligned infobox. Ick. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 12:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment moved to appropriate section per consistency with other image (Eastern Suburbs map). Looked too out of place in its original position. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: In its new position it screws up the "Alignment section" with a similar funnelling effect, and causes stacking problems into the next section "History". &mdash;ExplorerCDT 13:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've moved the Bondi Junction image down into the history section. How about that? Harryboyles 13:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In keeping with the Law of Unintended Consequences, that just causes a "white space problem" in the Alignment section when using several common broswer and monitor settings.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 14:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What can we do to fix it then? A solution or some solutions would be helpful - I've tried the page on 3 different browsers (Mozilla, IE and Safari), and there doesn't appear to be a problem with the alignment of that section, so I don't know how I can fix this. JROBBO 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, it's a textbook stacking problem. Within several settings at a 1024x768 resolution it places a little bit more than 2-inch (6cm) swatch of white space after the subsection header for Illawarra and Cronulla Lines.  Because at certain settings, the two left-aligned images stack on top of each other, and being both of them vertically are taller than their adjacent section text, it not only creates the white space, but the lower image pushes an inch and a half (4cm) into the "History" section.  Suggestions: (1) You can move one of the maps to another section of the article (nothing in the MOS says an image must be right next to its relevant text) (2) You can combine the two images to make one map covering both rail lines, especially one that better shows its location in relation to Sydney and each other.  While not objectionable with regard to the FAC, the map is low quality and doesn't do much to convey a better understanding of the railline.
 * Comment: You can try to fix it yourself and show us what you are talking about, ExplorerCDT. - Vicer 03:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I've explained the problem adequately. Second, I have no intentions of becoming a contributor to this article, and implying that I should is smug.  Third, I don't have the time to fix the issues that I feel are necessary to make this article worthy of inclusion at FA (i.e. the writing just isn't the quality of 1(a), still some glaring style, grammar issues...if someone just copyedited for subject-verb agreement it would improve the writing), I have barely enough time for the articles and things I worry about to pick up the slack on someone else's not-yet-FA-ready pet project. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 06:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you don't have time to fix up/write articles, but you have time to worry about this? I'm not trying to be rude, but I find it a bit odd. - Vicer 06:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not odd. It takes a lot to fix up this article, time I choose to apply to things I like applying them to, FAC, PR, writing my own articles. I have my priorities, you have yours. Don't ask me to do someone else's work. I don't need anyone else's cross to bear. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 08:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the second map; I'll add a single map at some stage. JROBBO 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: In furtherance of objection: Delink many currently-linked years (like 1894) that have no month and date attached and add no relevant context to the article, per WP:DATE and Only make links that are relevant to the context. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 06:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just about all of them are removed now, except the ones in the lead and other ones which I thought were important. What "is relevant to the context" will be, after all, a subjective judgement in the end, but you're welcome to pick me up on any others you feel should be removed. JROBBO 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Replies

 * 13:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I've cleaned up the history section, rewritten it (including deleting a lot of passive voice), taken out all wikilinks in the references except for access dates. If you don't like this section still, can I ask that you find sentences that you don't like and tell me which ones; I honestly don't know how I can make this better and I'm already sick of general comments saying it's boring - they're not helpful at all. The subject matter may not be as interesting as some other articles, but that can't be helped - tell me where (specifically) I can improve my writing. I'm still figuring out how to fix the alignment and stopping patterns section. JROBBO 13:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) For the information of NE2 & Mets501, I have now revamped the stations section - the pattern stops are gone, and are replaced with the distance from Central Station (the "zero point" of the rail network) and the date of opening of each station - although I didn't want to, I figured it's much more likely to survive any queries about notability if it's left this way. The stopping patterns section has been rewritten to include some historical information on the stopping patterns of trains and where trains have historically terminated. The replaceable fair use image has been deleted and replaced by a free mockup one which doesn't violate copyright. I'll now try to draw a rough map and fix the alignment section, which is the last bit of the article that needs redoing. JROBBO 11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I added maps, though their placement may need work. It would be nice if the infobox had a parameter for the map. --NE2 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've come to understand how the pattern stops can be useful - how about a single column showing whether most trains serve the station? --NE2 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to add this, comparing the old table with the timetable, but I'm not sure if I got it right; there seem to be some patterns that don't fit the ones described in the article. --NE2 02:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You probably looked at the early morning, which is always weird because there are usually revenue (ie. passenger-carrying) services coming from the Maintenance Centres or stabling yards which have bizarre stopping patterns. A good idea is to look at the middle of the day, which will give you a better idea of what the actual patterns are. JROBBO 09:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I've done some rewriting of the alignment section; if anyone can do a better job please have a go at doing so. Fixed image sizes have also been removed, apart from the red dots which would look horrible if we made them any bigger. I think this clears up all the (reasonable) requests that have been made in opposition to this article. JROBBO 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.