Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hastings Line/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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2015.

Hastings Line

 * Nominator(s): Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a secondary railway line in the United Kingdom. It was built across difficult terrain requiring many tunnels. Lax supervision of the construction of the tunnels meant that a following rectification of the defects discovered, a restricted loading gauge was required for 140 years. During a modernisation scheme in the 1980s, measures were taken to remove the loading gauge restriction. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I know little about the railways, other than using them, so please view my comments in the light of that ignorance: I hope these few comments are of help. I enjoyed this article, and I look forward to supporting it. –  Tim riley  talk    06:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments Support
 * Lead
 * "a secondary railway line…" – we could do with either a link or an explanation for this far from self-explanatory term
 * Drawing a blank here. I could add a series of notes, but the would come across the problem of needing to reference them. Would the term "secondary main line" convey the meaning better? Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd leave it as it is, I think. The general drift is clear enough. I thought it might be a precise technical term, but as it isn't one I think it is fine.
 * "the South eastern Railway" – the capitalisation looks odd, and I see it doesn't tally with the WP article or your own capitalisation in the main text of this article.
 * Typo fixed. Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Supervision of the construction … the construction" in the same sentence.
 * "the line … when the line" another repetition
 * Lede rewritten to avoid the repetition 18:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Background
 * I'm not making a big point of this, but I'm not sure the dogged listing of the various parliamentary stages is all that relevant. Unless there was any controversy during the passage of the bill I'd be inclined to say that it was introduced in the Commons on x, passed by both Houses by y and given the Royal Assent on z.
 * Hyphenation
 * "Bo-peep" (four times) or "Bopeep" (9 times) Junction? Consistency wanted.
 * I've gone with the modern spelling of "Bopeep", but note that the pub is spelled as "Bo Peep". Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Duplicate blue-links
 * Ashford
 * done Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bexhill West Branch Line
 * removed one of the 3 Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * branch line
 * Not found as a link Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * British Rail Class 201
 * removed one of the 3 Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * British Rail Class 202
 * Not done, sufficiently far apart and needed for context and consistency Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * British Rail Class 203
 * Not done, sufficiently far apart and needed for context and consistency Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * British Railways
 * Only one link found Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * chains
 * Obscure unit, linked through conversion template Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * London, Chatham and Dover Railway
 * done Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cudworth
 * not done, linked in full on first occurrence and by surname on second. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * East Coastway Line
 * done Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * East Sussex (twice)
 * done Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Eastbourne
 * Eastbourne railway station reduced to one link Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hastings
 * Hastings railway station reduced to one link after lede Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * High Weald
 * reduced to one link after lede Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Kent
 * reduced to one link after lede Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * London and South Western Railway
 * done Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pevensey
 * One link altered to link to railway station article Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Queen Victoria
 * done Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Railways Act 1921
 * done Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redhill (twice)
 * Redhill railway station reduced to one link Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Robertsbridge (twice)
 * Robertsbridge railway station reduced to one link Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Rother Valley Railway (twice)
 * Left linked to avoid confusion. The Kent and East Sussex Railway was opened as the Rother Valley Railway, but that title is used nowadays to denote the heritage line under construction from Robertsbridge toJunction Road to link up with the modern Kent and East Sussex heritage railway, due to open in 2017. Mjroots (talk)
 * SER branch
 * link not found Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sevenoaks
 * Sevenoaks railway station reduced to one link Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Southern Region
 * One link removed Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Transport Act 1947
 * done Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatlington
 * done Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * World War I
 * done Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * World War II
 * done Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Superfluous blue-links
 * mile
 * Mile has to be linked as it is linked from the conversion of distances from miles and chains to kilometres. chain (unit) is a relatively obscure unit of measurement nowadays, which is why in needs to be linked. Can't have one without the other. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * London
 * London is within context, and thus linkable. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. No persuaded, but not pressing the point.  Tim riley  talk    15:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * References
 * Why give the location for The Times in brackets at each mention but not do the same for The Morning Chronicle, The Morning Post, etc?
 * Locations added. Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Similarly, why give the day of the week – "Monday, 10 March" etc – for The Times but not for the others?
 * It's to do with the way cite newspaper The Times is set up. The use of the day of the week with cite news is now deprecated ( AFAIK ). Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ref 52: newspaper title should be italicised
 * Done Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ref 55: hyphen should be en-dash
 * Done Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ref 83: The Morning Chronicle has lost its definite article, which it had at the three earlier mentions
 * Fixed Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ref 84: something awry with the capitalisation, I think
 * Fixed Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ref 127: as for ref 52
 * Done Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources
 * ISBNs/OCLCs missing for Carr, Garrett, Kidner (1963), Neve, Nock (both), Rose.
 * Neve (1933), Nock (1961) and Kidner (1963) were published before the introduction of ISBNs. Catt (Carr?), Garrett and Rose do not have ISBNs. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * can you help with OCLCs please? Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Catt (1970) should have either an ISBN or a SBN, it's old enough (a SBN is merely an ISBN which lacks the initial 0); however, it's Oakwood Press, and they didn't start using visible ISBNs until quite late - about 1980 I think; so there might not be one for this book, unless it was reprinted later on. However, Oakwood Press didn't often do straight reprints - they usually had the book revised and enlarged at the same time, so searching for an ISBN online might well turn up that of a later edition - not a good idea. If there is a visible ISBN, it may be inside the book, at the top or bottom of the of the first page of text. For books in their "Locomotion Papers" series, there may be a number on the front cover, just below the photograph, at the left-hand side - and in extremely small type. All my examples have "ISSN: 0305-5493" in this position, but that's obviously not unique to the book.
 * Garrett (1987) should have an ISBN somewhere. My copy is the 3rd edition (1999), ISBN 0-85361-516-0 but as I noted above, that should not be used as the ISBN for an earlier edition.
 * Bit puzzled here. There is no Kidner (1963): there is Dendy Marshall & Kidner (1963); Kidner (1977) and Kidner (1985). Which of these is in error?
 * My copy of Nock (1961) is the 1971 paperback edition, marked "SBN 7110-0268-1" which directly converts to ISBN 0-7110-0268-1. I don't know if it was revised or not, but it's not likely - Ian Allan tended to put out a book with part of the content unaltered from the original, but a different title to give the impression that it was new. I've been ripped off like that before.
 * Nock (1987) is a book club edition. These almost never had an ISBN, but were identical in all important respects to the original editions, in this case one from Patrick Stephens Ltd. so its ISBN should begin 1-85260-
 * ISBN 0-85059-735-8, OCLC 14128551 -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Rose (1984) may be a private publication. If they were not sold through a commercial distributor, they probably didn't need an ISBN. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)he
 * I am so sorry! I ought to have pointed you in the direction of WorldCat, from which the ref numbers are immediately available: e.g. Garrett is ISBN 0853611009 or 9780853611004 (the 13 digit version is preferred by the MoS, but what the hell). For older books the OCLC numbers are there for the copying.  Tim riley  talk    20:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If a book has no ISBN stated, it's because there isn't one printed in the book. All OCLC numbers that I could find have now been added. Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to blather on about this, but where you cite ISBNs it is not customary to add OCLCs as well. One or the other, usually. Just mentioning it, as it will probably come up in the source review.  Tim riley  talk    15:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh well, now they're there they might as well stay. Gives people another search option if they are interested. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Judge: MOS:ALLCAPS
 * This is the exact title of the book, per the title page. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OPC usually gave their main titles in all-caps, both on the cover and title page. We normally reformat titles of books, articles etc. to Title Case - see MOS:ALLCAPS. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Authors' initials: need for consistency: Garret has no full stops; Bradley, Butt, Nock (once) et al have full stops but no space between the initials; Judge, Kidner, Nock (once) et al have full stops and a space between initials.
 * Fixed Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hyphens should be en-dashes in the first two Yonge entries.
 * Template edited to fix this Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And I now do, with pleasure.  Tim riley  talk    15:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from the Doctor
Will review this tomorrow morning first thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * " Although primarily carrying passengers now, there is still freight from a gypsum mine served by the railway." -not too positive about the tense used here, I'd reword it as "Although it primarily carries passengers, it continues to transport freight from a gypsum mine" or something like that.
 * Rewritten Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Passenger trains on the line are operated by Southeastern." seems a bit out of place to add it at the end of the lede after what was said, perhaps move it up and merge into where you mention the railway carrying passengers?
 * Moved Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Background
 * "A temporary station was built at Tunbridge Wells as the 823 yards (753 m) Wells Tunnel was still under construction. It was 4 miles 7 chains (6.58 km) from Tunbridge. This subsequently became a goods station." - some short sentences here could be rewritten and merged in part to improve flow.
 * I tweaked the wording a bit, but it's saying what I want it to say without getting out of chronological order. Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delink £5,700 as it's misleading.
 * unlinked Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Construction
 * "t gradients of between 1 in 47[Note 2] and 1 in 300 to a summit south of Tunbridge Wells, the line undulated as far as Wadhurst at gradients between 1 in 80 and 1 in 155 before descending into the Rother Valley, which it follows as far as Robertsbridge at gradients between 1 in 48 and 1 in 485. The line then climbs at gradients between 1 in 86 and 1 in 170 before a dip where it crosses the River Brede. This is followed by a climb to Battle with gradients between 1 in 100 and 1 in 227 before the line falls to Hastings at gradients " -can you find a few to say "gradients" less often here, it's a tad repetitive.
 * I think it needs to stay as is, removing "gradients" means that the sentences don't look right, or read correctly. Further input from other editors on this issue is welcome, and suggestions will be considered. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Messrs. H -is the plain H intentional here?
 * Punctuation was missing, now added. Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Tunnels
 * Can you find a way to vary "is located"/ I'm not sure you even need to say it. I know doesn't like saying "located" or "situated"!♦  Dr. Blofeld  15:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed all occurrences of "located", also fixed a previously unnoticed typo. Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Openings
 * Again, repetitive with "station opened on"
 * There's a lot of short sub sections here, I can't help but think it would read better in one and simply link the station instead of the "main article" repeating..
 * Do you mean the "Stations" section? Yes, it may be a tad repetitive but facts are facts. I've tried to keep to essential details only, which is why you won't find details of former freight facilities, closure of goods yards and signal boxes etc., which belong in the articles on the stations themslves. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you can avoid repetition with some partial rewording in places.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, as all station from Frant to Robertsbridge opened on the same dat, I've put that fact into a sentence in the introduction to that section. Other openings are mentioned under individual entries. Mjroots (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I always think it's best to avoid bullet points.
 * Accidents and incidents
 * This is an accepted method for such sections. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Does know what the MoS guidelines say on the matter? I can see in some cases it might be OK, but I always try to avoid bullet points as much as possible.♦  Dr. Blofeld  15:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for SandyGeorgia, but Manual of Style/Embedded lists seems to indicated bulleted lists are accpetable as "children" of a preceding paragraph, so maybe some form of introduction to the section should be included. &mdash; An  optimist  on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 15:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added an introductory sentence to that section. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  13:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.