Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hastings Line/archive2


 * 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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2015.

Hastings Line

 * Nominator(s): Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 19 July 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.

This is the second nomination for this article. The first nomination failed mainly because of a lack of reviewers. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Editors involved with previous FAC

I take it that you still support, Tim. Dr. B, have you any further comments to those issues raised in the first FAC? Do you accept my responses where I have not made changes? RedRose64 and Tivedshambo/Pek, do you have any comments re this FAC? Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to support again. It is a weakness of the FAC system that a fine article can fail because not enough reviewers happen to have looked in. (Not that I can think of any other FAC system that would be more practical.) I hope most sincerely that this time the article will get enough head of steam. It certainly merits promotion to FA in my view. I have (not, I hope, improperly) put a note on my talk page drawing attention to this review.  Tim riley  talk    20:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Mjroots
Editors should read the comments in Archive 1 before commenting here. This is to avoid duplication. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto
Tim brought me here with a request on his talk. I've fixed some refs for you and have laid down some "by whom" tags which I think need to be clarified. I'll continue to read and post here over the next few days.  Cassianto Talk   21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've clarified one. One is obvious, and for the other the source does not state who proposed the line to Mayfield, only that there was such a proposal and that a meeting was held at Mayfield. Mjroots (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok.  Cassianto Talk   12:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Construction
 * "The Hastings Line is built over difficult terrain..." POV. How and why is it difficult?  Give the reasons why it is "difficult".   Cassianto Talk   12:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Difficult terrain" is not POV when a source states that the High Weald is difficult terrain (Beecroft, p.7, para 1, line 3 and also p.7, para 3, line 2). Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)q
 * How is it difficult? Rocky, hilly, slippery, overgrown?  What might be "difficult" to one might not be difficult to another.    Cassianto Talk   14:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Explained that it is forested and hilly. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Better, thank you. I would be willing to strike the oppose if everything else is ironed out. It's not completely out of the question to be able to do this whilst the FAC is ongoing, it just depends on how much time in RL you have to be able to do it.   Cassianto Talk   15:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support -- this article's promotion to FA. I have read through this article again and I'm highly impressed with the improvements; it's like a different article!  Oppose stricken and deferred to full support.   Cassianto Talk   07:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose -- I'm sorry, but the more I look at this article the more I see further problems. There is a lot of repetition in the prose; tunnels, station(s) are two words that spring to mind immediately and a lot of it can be either cut out or merged. There are a lot of stubby lines which makes for some bumpy reading; POV issues which could be worded in a more neutral way, and punctuation errors are also present (two of which I have fixed). On the whole, I don't think it's ready. I see you had a peer review which resulted in a couple of people turning up, but to be honest, I don't think it has been of benefit. I would suggest you withdraw the nomination, look about at FA and note down past editors who have been successful in producing featured articles on the railways. I would then approach them and ask them to take part in a review of some kind. On the plus side, I would say that this article is very well researched. It could be a fascinating article if the writing matched in quality.  Cassianto Talk   12:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * with eight tunnels and fourteen stations, those words are going to occur quite a lot. There are no alternative words available to use, except in the case of Mountfield Halt. Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, and I'm not adverse to a little repetition where it can't be helped. But I feel it can be helped in some places. If you look at a couple of my copy edits, you will see what kind of repetition can be avoided.    Cassianto Talk   15:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got time, but am away from home for a few days, so might lack access to a few sources, although I've got Beecroft with me. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! Well it was only opened yesterday so you have bags of time.  I don't think you'll need many books as my issue is not with content but with the prose.  I will of course assist in any which way I can, although not enough to warrant my eventual support biased.   Cassianto Talk   19:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm now back at home. Unfortunately a relative has passed away today so I might not be around much tomorrow, weekend looking a little better though. Should be back to normal service by Monday. Mjroots (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume "past editors who have been successful in producing featured articles on the railways" is a reference to either myself or User:DavidCane given that $2/3$ of the UK railways FAs(!) were written by one or the other of us. I don't really see an issue with the prose in this instance. An article of this nature is unavoidably going to have a lot of repetition, since one can't really describe the route of a railway line (or road, or canal etc) without a lot of "cutting, tunnel, bridge, tunnel, bridge" repetitiveness. With some articles like Talyllyn Railway or Brill Tramway the lines were built in stages, so it's possible to hide the repetition by spreading out the route description among the sections, but when something was opened all-at-once a long and boring "Route" section is unavoidable. (See Manchester Ship Canal or Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line for examples in current FAs.) – iridescent 08:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - do you still oppose? Any concrete suggestions as to areas still needing work? Mjroots (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to re-read it. I see that Brian has given a review which, assuming you've taken his advice, should seal my support.  I'll read through over the next couple of days and report back.  You may want to ping Brian to ask him if he is satisfied with all your fixes.   Cassianto Talk   10:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * you've not forgotten this, have you?

Support from Optimist on the run
No comments to make, but full support (making it explicit this time, as I hadn't realised a lack of negative comments wasn't enough). &mdash; An  optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 06:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
A few preliminary comments:
 * Infobox map: I don't think this is adequate. The railway line is far from prominent in the map – frankly, if you aren't familiar with SE England geography you'll have a job locating Hastings, let alone Tunbridge (Tonbridge) or Tunbridge Wells. Would it be possible to work with a mapper, to get the line highlighted in some way? At present, the dominant, eye-catching line is the irrelevant county boundary.
 * I generally accept what you say. The area is "home territory" for me, but someone in Wisconsin might not necessarily know the area. There's no technical reason why a derivative map cannot be created highlighting the Hastings Line. Unfortunately I don't possess the skills to do this myself, Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know an excellent mapper. At he moment, he's doing a rather intricate job for me, but when he's through I'll ask him if he can assist you. It's quite a simple task – highlighting  the line and enlarging the destination place names – but, as with you, it's beyond my technical competence. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If can't help, you could send it to Graphics Lab/Map workshop. As it's an SVG map, it should be possible to carry out all the mods using a plain text editor; I've had a look, and the route itself is in two sections: path3408 is the line from North Kent East Junction to just north of Wadhurst; and path3440 is the line from just north of Wadhurst to Hastings and on to about Ore. It'll need those paths to be split. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Clem has done a new map, which means that this issue has now been dealt with. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Still with the map, I found it difficult to interpret the caption: "Note the line's relation with the South Eastern Main Line in the north and other lines around Hastings." How do I identify the South Eastern Main Line?
 * I've tweaked the map caption a bit, should now be more obvious where Hastings is. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Background: The collapsed diagram is excellent – it seems a pity to "hide" such a useful feature.
 * The map is collapsed because it can be quite dominant. On my PC,using Firefox, when extended it clashes with the TOC. I'm currently on a laptop using Google Chrome. When extended, the diagram pushes the TOC down and does not clash. Best left normally collapsed IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Construction of a single line branch from Tunbridge to Tunbridge Wells, a fashionable town where a chalybeate spring had been discovered in 1606, began in July that year..." That year!!? (I've heard of heritage lines, but that's ridiculous). Seriously, you do need to reword that sentence; personally, I'd drop the chalybete spring stuff altogether,  as it is barely relevant to the railway.
 * Reworded and clarified the sentence.
 * The background to TW is important for context. Before the C17th, Tunbrige parish extended as far as the Sussex border. It the town hadn't existed in the mid-1840s, the next settlement of any size would have been Wadhurst. It was the existence of the town that spurred the SER to put the branch in. Without the branch, there was less likelihood of an extension southwards. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of this section has considerable overdetailing, and could be cut drastically. We don't need the detail for each step of the legislation through parliament. I would consider replacing everything after "31 July" with: "The  necessary Act of Parliament had passed all its legislative stages by 28 July 1845, after which Royal Assent was granted on 31 July."
 * I've reduced the detail quite a bit. I left the start date in to indicate the timescale involved in the Act's passage through Parliament. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "it was decided" – who made the decision?
 * Now stated. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * " The first train, comprising four locomotives and 26 carriages arrived on 19 September" Some punctuation missing. And arrived where?
 * rewritten and clarified. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Trains from Tunbridge had to reverse before starting the climb to Somerhill Tunnel, as there was no facing junction at Tunbridge. This situation was to remain until 1857, when a direct link was built at a cost of £5,700.  The old link remained in use until c. 1913." Sorry, but I'm having great difficulty understanding  this.
 * I've added a diagram showing the development of Tonbridge station. Should be clear now. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't finished the Background section, yet I've identified quite a few problems. The information is all here in the article, but its presentation seems to need quite a bit more work. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for the above comments, which give me something concrete to work with. I will respond individually to points raised. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to work with you, to get this up to standard, but it may take me a while, as I have much to do at present. I trust the co-ordinators will be patient. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, as long as there's activity we are fine. It's when things go quiet that the clock starts ticking. Mjroots (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The map is better, but as mentioned below, could be improved. Leaving that aside for the moment, my chief concerns are with the prose. Rather than cluttering this FAC page with detail, I intend to open a thread on the article's talkpage and raise issues there. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Later comment: I have raised a number of prose and presentational points on the talkpage. Mostly these have been addressed, and I think the article has improved. My remaining concerns, which I have passed to the nominator, are:
 * The over-listy appearance of the article. We have a table of tunnels, a section that is effectively a list of stations (which are also listed within the collapsed diagram of the line), and two sections presented in bullet point format, meaning two further lists. If little can be done about the tunnels and stations, then at least the BPs can be prosified.
 * Too many images: the desire to have an image for every tunnel and every station is misplaced. The article's presentation is seriously distorted; we don't need to know what every station looked like, and if we want to know, there are linked articles for each station where the imagesare shown. I strongly recommend a considerable reduction in the number of images in this article.
 * The article contains the sentence: "The train, consisting the Royal Saloon, two first class carriages and a brake van made the journey from Bricklayers Arms to Tunbridge Wells in 75 minutes". Thinking the omission of "of" after "consisting" was a typo, I inserted it. My correction has been reverted and the original form reinstated on the grounds that it was correct.

Work needed on these points, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed images of all stations except Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells and Hastings. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, "consisting of" is incorrect. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are right, the Oxford Dictionary of English is wrong!  I believe you are confusing this with "comprising" which does not require the "of". Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm persuaded. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been changed per WP:COMPRISEDOF. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Openings section has now been put into prose. I think this now addresses all of 's points. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for your response here please. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Clem
Changing the map is trivial- knowing what is required involves thinking. All my svgs are done using Inkscape- which is free on Linux and I think Microstuff. I am doing a few at the moment File:London dial.svg etc. So how do you want it changed? I can't quickly find an similar FA page to see what is required. Maybe this is case of doing a pencil sketch, scanning and sending an external email. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What is needed is the Hastings Line bolded betwen Tonbridge and Hastings. The date 1852 adding between Robertsbridge and West St Leonards, and the built up area of Hastings marking. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion, you may want to take the approach I took at Brill Tramway, of losing the backgrounds on the maps altogether, except possibly the coastline, and instead having a series of line-diagrams showing the evolution of railway lines over time, with this particular line highlighted. In the context of the article, it's virtually irrelevant where Hastings, Tonbridge etc actually are (readers either already know, or don't care); what's important is (1) how the line in question line relates to other railway lines and (2) how direct the route to London is. – iridescent  08:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (adding) I agree that the image currently in the infobox (File:Kent Railways.svg) isn't suitable. The most prominent thing on that is the red line for the Kent border; given that said border runs from London, to Tunbridge Wells, to the south coast, readers are reasonably going to assume that it's the route of the railway line. – iridescent  09:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have modded the map, but in doing so have to agree it is not of a FA standard. The source was Jessop's page in Kent railways and the lines that tailed off into East Sussex were an afterthought. (Also I cant find either of my copies of Jessop at the moment). It will do as a holding job but if we get a better image- then just ditch it. File:Hastings Kent Railways.svg-- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that Southeastern (train operating company) has File:Southeastern TOC route map 2010.svg. That is an even clearer map, perhaps a version of it showing only the Hastings line could be made. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Testing the internet in a l'Arche Cafeteria on the A10 south of Paris! File:Southeastern TOC route map 2010 Hastings.svg may be what you want. Do check the permissions etc- je suis un peu pressé.--  Clem Rutter (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * not to denigrate your work in producing these maps, but I think the existing map is better, sorry. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too. But now I have proved it. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Lingzhi

 * Color me very irritated. You're transcluding references into your article. It's a cute trick, but only useful for people who are not careless. Every citation in the article should be matched with a reference, and just as importantly, no reference in the references should be there unless it has a matching citation. You're transcluding refs in batches of more than one. If even one of these isn't used in the article, the whole transclusion is a mistake. Please get importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');  to check for redlinks in your refs. Please do not add refs that are not cited. &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 23:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Colour me confused. Having checked your edits, which were mostly adding non-breaking spaces to dates, do you mean the use of Quail-5? Mjroots (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. It transcludes three references to Yonge, not one of which was cited in the text. I actually like the idea of transcluding refs. I wish Wikipedia would set up a ref space so editors could type something like APA-specific_doi or APA-specific_ISBN and get a perfectly formatted APA  reference to a journal and book. But if you're gonna transclude anything, use it. Please. And if three are on one transclusion, you have to use all 3 of them. Please. &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 05:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of that template was not my doing. It is correct to the RDT, and is cited there. Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What RDT? The only article relevant to this discussion is Hastings Line. Moreover, it is irrelevant who put it there. It is merely relevant that it shouldn't be there. I again encourage you to add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');  to your common.js, to make it much easier to catch this sort of error. Tks. &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 06:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hastings Line Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see. But the references for that illustration are inside noincludes, which effectively means that they are not a part of this article. You need to work out some other arrangement. A Note somewhere inside the main section of the illustration and a couple ref tags in the Note would work (technically), if other reviewers would accept that format. Or you could do it some other way. But as it stands, even though in your mind the Quail templated refs point to somethng in this article, in fact they do not. &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 09:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note my edits to the template and the article, and see whether they are acceptable to you. &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 04:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The note is against the statement that milages are from Charing Cross. The only ref that supports this statement is Miles and Chains, so it is possible to lose the other refs and leave them in the RDT. Mjroots (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also given in Quail. See for example third edition, maps 10B, 18A and 18B which all state "miles from Charing Cross via Chelsfield", and map 18C which states "miles from Charing Cross via Chelsfield and Battle". -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , can you add the relevant page numbers to the refs for Note 1 please? Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ with which also reduced the number of displayed editions from three to one, which addresses 's original concern about . -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually intended for that note to have scope over the whole template. :-) Perhaps I'm still thinking within the "paper hardcopy publication" paradigm instead of online format... In a paper publication, if you compile a table a chart from some sources, those sources must be noted somewhere in the article or dissertation or whatever. But if Wikipedia's licensing is OK with attribution within the noinclude of the template itself (it is very plainly visible if you know how to go to template space to look at it, but doing so admittedly requires a small level of wiki-sophistication), then perhaps the note and all relevant refs can be deleted. But if no one knows the answer to that admittedly picky question, perhaps the safest things to do would be to somehow make it visible in the article (as I have attempted to do, via the note). &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 10:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Drive by comment by Nick-D
The number of photos is greatly excessive, and causes considerable amounts of white space at the end of the article. Please be more selective with the choice of images. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any issues with images causing white space. Try increasing your font size. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely seeing what Nick-D is seeing—the images are so close together they push each other down, creating a huge white space at the end between "Notes" and 'References" with a "tail" of images down the side. When the WMF increase the default image size, as they're likely to do fairly soon, this will only make the matter worse. (I'd suggest losing most of the individual station photos; they aren't particularly interesting architecturally, and anyone who wants to know what they look like will be reading the individual station articles anyway.) – iridescent  13:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got 4 lines of text below the image of Hastings station. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Different people will see the layout differently. It depends upon many factors, not just obvious ones like screen width and font size, but also the settings at and  will affect it. Different browsers will lay out the page in various ways. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a largish monitor (but not usually so), but the amount of white space is pretty huge - it's about the equivalent of 1 1/2 screens of white space with photos at the side. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would formatting the stations section into a table (similar to tunnels section) be acceptable? That way, the images would be confined to the table and not stretch past the bottom of the secion for some readers. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I imagine that would help, but reducing the number of photos would be preferable (for instance, what does having two images of the train ticket add?). I'd note that quite a few of the photos are low quality. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried a table, and it doesn't work. Too much text produces lots of whitespace; also the inability to have a caption with a specified image width. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

All images in the article are valid. I appreciate that some of them are not the best quality, but they are the best that we've got. There is one image still needing to be added, I'm in correspondence with Network Rail re filling this gap. The ticket images could be combined into a single image. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * most of the station images have now been culled. Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Iridescent
I'll come off the fence and support this. There are a lot of things I'd have done differently had I written this, and I would seriously recommend hiving the individual tunnels and trains off into a separate page (c.f. Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway); most readers are interested in when it was built, why it was built and how it has changed since it was built, and don't care about the lengths of each tunnel or the exact distance of each station from London; moving this off below the fold onto a de facto subpage will make the parent article much zippier without significantly impacting on the usefulness for people who do want the specialist detail. However, "not done the way I'd have done it" isn't a criterion, and while parts of this arguably violate the MOS, I think all the violations are marginal and justifiable. (There's also one rather questionable source in the bibliography, but that's only used to cite a non-contententious date for a name change.) Railway articles are inevitably boring for those who don't already have an interest in the topic, as there's so much that needs to be included despite not being of interest to most readers, but this does as good a job as any at making the topic accessible to those who don't know one end of a train from the other, without omitting anything necessary. – iridescent 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Frank Chapman was a senior reporter with the Kent and Sussex Courier for many years, and wrote several books on Tonbridge topics. Probably not very well known outside the area. I wouldn't have used him if he wasn't a reliable source for the info. Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support: I concur with Iridescent's characteristically generous comments, above. This article has received a great deal of reviewer attention during this FAC, not always in the same direction, and further tweaking probably isn't going to improve it. Most of my main criticisms concerning readability and presentation have been satisfactorily dealt with, and I don't feel strongly enough to insist on further changes. I will be happy to see this promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Coord note -- fair bit of discussion re. images and sources above but have we had formal reviews of image licensing and source formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - this would have been covered when the article was promoted to GA status. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * GAN isn't FAC, and it was almost a year ago anyway, so I'd like to see fresh reviews. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - as you've sort of raised the issue of sources above, would you do the review of sourcing and images please? Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the belated reply (I only just noticed this). Because almost all the references are to obscure specialist books, this is almost impossible to fully spotcheck, although the one book in the references I do have access to (Branch Lines to Tunbridge Wells from Oxted, Lewes and Polegate) does check out, as does a dipsample of the references to websites.
 * I have no concerns about the legitimacy of the sources, even though they're from obscure presses. As has been raised before at FAC, a lot of people writing about railways in Britain choose to write for Ian Allan or for local small presses and historical societies, even when it's not necessarily in their financial interest to do so. The nature of trainspotters/railfans means no error is likely to survive for long.
 * (As an aside, I'd agree with those recommending losing the ticket images. I agree that even if they are technically in copyright, the 20-years-defunct British Rail is not about to start chasing for royalties, but they don't particularly add anything since they're not particularly artistically interesting and don't contain any information that's not already in the article.) &#8209; iridescent 10:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The (now combined) ticket image is staying. It portrays the biggest event in the history of the line since opening. I don't understand why people are not seeing the significance of the event. Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see the significance of the event, I just don't feel that the ticket images add anything to readers' understanding of it. I've already supported regardless and the image isn't a dealbreaker, I just don't see the point of including them, as to me they add clutter without conveying any information already in the text. &#8209; iridescent 10:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review
The infobox map and all photographs of trains, stations, tunnels and stretches of track seem fine – some have been created by Wikipedians and released into the public domain or published under an acceptable CC licence; others have been transferred from Geograph.org.uk or Flickr, having originally been published under an acceptable CC licence.

Are File:1066 ticket front.jpg and File:1066 ticket back.jpg truly ineligible for copyright protection, given that they are more than simple shapes and have a certain element of creativity to them (the "1066" logo on the front; the text on each side)? I'm slightly concerned that they may be pushing the limits of "no original authorship".  Super Mario  Man  ( talk ) 13:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - I was expecting this. AFAIK, railway tickets are ineligible for copyright. This was brought up at the Good Article nomination. The issue was raise at WP:MCQ (diff), and the query was eventually archived a second time without a firm answer. As those who frequent MCQ are "hot" on copyright infringements, I took this to mean that there was no problem with the images being housed on Commons (along with an earlier image showing the front of a similar ticket from the event). Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Crisco 1492

 * Oppose Responding to the ping on Ian's talk page: I would nix both of these images, both because the status is unclear, and because the number of images in this article is unwieldy. An article of this length does not need 29 images (30 if we had an image of Wadhurst Tunnel, which I'm assuming you'd include if you had one). Per WP:IRELEV you should go through the article and choose those most pertinent to the subject at hand. Look for quality and educational value, not quantity.
 * Also, and this is the crux of my opposition, the section #Stations reads extremely rough with all those short paragraphs and sections. Rather, I'd write a few paragraphs about the stations (two to three, summarizing the key points) and then (if necessary) create a Stations along Hastings Line article (or whatever). Doing that would allow you to improve readability, reduce the number of images, and (if you choose to make a list) use images of all of the railway stations in the same article (just not this one).
 * Essentially, I agree with all of Brian's outstanding comments. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There has already been one major cull of images from the article. Looking at the images, all are relevant. There are very few that could be culled, but I'd be loathe to do so. The only obvious candidates are those of Bopeep Jn signalbox and the preserved Hastings Unit. It is my intention to fill the Wadhurst Tunnel gap, and I've been in correspondence with Network Rail to this end. Unfortunately, there remains a licencing issue to clear up.
 * The ticket images are not proven copyvios. As I have said above, they have been before MCQ and have been allowed to remain, therefore it would seem that they are valid. Unless and until they are deleted from Commons, they should remain as they illustrate an important point in the history of the line.
 * I believe that I have addressed all points raised by . Mjroots (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering Brian isn't supporting, I don't think he necessarily agrees with you. The sheer number of people expressing concern over the number of images is evidence enough that the management of images is not up to FA standards.
 * As for the tickets, the Precautionary principle does not require us to "proof violation of copyright. It states "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." The threshold of originality is deliberately very low in the UK, such that many signatures would even fall under copyright. Four paragraphs of text is certainly enough to constitute a copyrightable piece of work in British law.
 * You have failed to respond to my concerns over the quality of the prose in the "Stations" section. Brian has raised the same point already. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've not responded to your concerns over the stations section yet because I'm thinking about what has been suggested. It is likely that I will make some changes there. Will report back once I've done so. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've give this much thought, and have decided that the section will stay as is. As stated above, I have struck a balance between giving basic details of the station, whilst leaving detailed info to the article on the station itself. Several editors support the article with the section as is. I hope you will understand and accept my reasoning. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot get behind an article with single or double-sentence sections at this level. That's fine for a stub or even a start-class article. Maybe even C. But not FA. Wikipedia:Summary_style states that sections are "usually several good-sized paragraphs long". MOS:BODY states "Very short [...] sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." MOS:PARAGRAPHS states "Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose", "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized." and "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." As the stations section is currently written, it and its subsections violate these parts of the MOS, and the above-linked guideline. You can take another approach if you want, but my oppose still stands so long as there are single or double-sentence sections and subsections. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The section is now compliant with MOS:LAYOUT. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose stricken — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I have in fact registered a support. I feel the issues on which I differ from the nominator are insufficient for me to demand further modifications. In this, I followed the reasoning of Iridescent, who gave his support just before I did. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, comment stricken. I would still like to see the number of images decreased (we have, for instance, two images of the Turnbridge Wells station in the article, one after another), and I'm curious to see if and how the Stations section will be reworked. (As for that list article I mentioned, something like List of Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester or List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek may give you ideas) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Some more image ideas: If we combine the station blurbs into several paragraphs, with one illustration in this article, that would reduce the total number of illustrations by three. If we combined the two Electrified tickets into one file and hosted it locally, we'd reduce the number of illustrations by one and also deal with the possible copyright concerns (instead of waiting several months for Commons); I've uploaded a version here). After that, nix one or two locomotive images, and my concerns would be addressed. I don't mind having the tunnel table with images, since (unlike a stations list) it could not readily stand on its own. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the photograph of the preserved Hastings Unit. That leaves photgraphs of the Schools Class, Hastings Unit, class 33/2 (designed for the line), 4CEP and Networkers, which worked on the line, and the Class 70, which was designed for use on the line. I'm not minded to include a photo of either class of Bulleid Pacifics unless one can be found of such a locomotive working on the line.
 * Re the ticket combined image, would it be possible to have a vertical alignment? Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing for the ticket (done; same link as above). I'd still nix one more train. On my screen, the "Electrostar unit 375 610 Royal Tunbridge Wells" image is entirely within the accidents section, which implies that the type of car was involved in an accident.
 * The only other image that could realistically be pulled is that of the Pullman carriage, which is not the best quality. Mjroots (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well? Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's better. I'm still uncomfortable with the run-over, but I'll strike my oppose if you can deal with the Stations section. The images are at a more manageable level now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've used the combined ticket image. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You may want to stagger some of the images left and right (as allowed by WP:IMGLOC) to avoid monotony. That could help reduce the impact of having so many images.
 * See above discussion and explanation. It comfortably sits within the section for me. Try increasing font size to about 130%. Mjroots (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see the relation between "comfortably sits within the section for me" and staggering images. Regarding the run-over, FAs have to appear properly on a variety of screens. That is our responsibility as article writers. Today's desktop screens are getting even larger, so run-over will become more of a problem as time passes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A third point: The write-up on the 2013 accident is almost twice as long as the second longest write-up, for the 2010 accident (which is twice as long as most of the other accident write ups). I'd rework it a bit, shorten it, to keep the article balanced between the historical and the recent. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The "2013 accident" is actually a series of 3 incidents in 2013-14, hence the length. The Stonegate overrun is not really shortenable. The 1958 accident is under-length. I hope to acquire a laptop in the near future which will enable research from newspaper sources held in Tunbrige Wells and Tonbridge libraries. There may be an article to be had, considering that it was the most serious on the line. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "A series of landslips between December 2013 and February 2014 led the line to be closed and reopened three times, with service replaced by buses during closures. Southeastern was criticized by Hastings and Rye MP Amber Rudd over poor customer service during this period. By 12 March, the section between Wadhurst and Robertsbridge had reopened, with full service being restored on 31 March 2014" is perfectly serviceable for a summary article which doesn't go into too much detail and avoids overly-detailed "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.". The version currently in the article gives the incidents undue weight. I agree that another line or two for the 1958 accident is desirable, considering the seriousness. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rewritten. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Stricken. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Just a note that this still needs a review of source formatting. I see commented on the spot-check/reliability but I'm still spotting formatting problems. For example, inconsistent expression of page ranges (see fn 32 and 67). -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now fixed. Can't see any others myself, but no doubt someone will spot something an point it out. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Formatting: I am assuming that all spotchecking has been done, and have only looked at formatting isues:
 * "HC Deb" and "HL Deb" – presumably these abbreviations  stand for "House of Commons Debates" and "House of Lords Debates", but as this won't be  obvious to all your readers, you should to spell them out.
 * Ref 16: hyphen should be ndash
 * Ref 65: space needed after "p."
 * Ref 84: is "p. 0" correct? Very odd pagination if it is
 * Ref 107: lacks a "p."
 * Ref 121: I get a "Bandwidth Limit Exceeded" error message
 * Ref 138: Why no page ref?

These are the only format points than I can find. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Refs 16 & 65 - fixed.
 * Ref 84 shouldn't be a page number at all, because Mitchell & Smith (authors of most of these) do not use page numbers. The bulk of each of their books consists of maps and photographs with detailed captions, the maps may be identified as e.g. "map XIV" and the photos as "fig. 123", etc. Preceding the first map or photo are two or more sections of text, again on unnumbered pages. I don't know whether a section of text is intended, or a photo caption.
 * Ref 107 - it says "Illustration 48", why does it need "p."?
 * Ref 121 - that website (www.railwaysarchive.co.uk) has been throwing a HTTP 509 (Bandwidth Limit Exceeded) intermittently, for some weeks (my earliest experience was 26 July 2015).
 * Ref 138 - see my notes for Ref 84; "Historical background" is a common title for one of these sections of text. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for assistance. I will have to extract Tonbridge to Hastings from the library and reformat ref #84. Whilst I've got the book, I'll double check all other refs from it. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - the Hansard references are using Ukhansard, so if we desire links from "HC Deb" and "HL Deb", it is something that needs to be done via that template. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't desire or need links to HC Deb or HL Deb, if you spell out these cryptic forms. The links are to the debates themselves. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've checked the KCC Library catalogue, and there is a copy of Tonbridge to Hastings in Tonbridge library, but it is reference only. Hopefully I'll be allowed to get it near a computer, and be able to work from it in the library. I've got to be in Tonbridge tomorrow anyway, so will be able to devote some time to this task. Gut feeling is that its the "Historical background" section, but I want to make sure. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lucky I did check, it was "Passenger services". We should be all done now. :) Mjroots2 (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Note to coordinators: My considered view is that these minor format questions could be cleared up after promotion, if you think that otherwise the article is ready. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.