Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wood Siding railway station/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:23, 9 September 2010.

Wood Siding railway station

 * Nominator(s): –  iride scent  12:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Of all the obscure stations in Buckinghamshire which somehow ended up briefly as outposts of the London Underground, Wood Siding probably made the least likely tube station. It served an area with almost no population (the owners didn't even bother to collect passenger usage figures for it) and was primarily a collection point for milk, and the "station building" was a small shed "with shelf and drawer". In 64 years of existence the only significant things to happen there were the sole member of staff getting a ladder so he could look out for oncoming trains, and the station being rebuilt on a bridge to allow another rail line to pass underneath. Its main interest today lies in the fact that it's one of the few vestiges of the Brill Tramway to have left any visible evidence of its existence, in the form of a ruined bridge which once supported it. – iride scent  12:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Nice addition to the series; no problems I could see. No problems in the images. Ucucha 20:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Obscure but complete. About the only things missing are the full names of each of the passengers. Well done. --DavidCane (talk) (FAC) 01:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Great article. I loved reading it. Dincher (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understood the point and am not trying be argumentative. Let me try to summarize my thoughts on this. 1) Conversions between miles and kilometres should be more exact than what is currently in the lead. 2) The lead, as a summary of the rest of the article, should not have a distance that is different than the one in the body of the article (whatever that distance may be). 3) I think that both the distance and the time between this station and "London" are important to include. Just giving time can be misleading, in part because of the only speeds given elsewhere in the article (5 to 8 miles per hour might make one think a two hour journey by rail was only 10 to 16 miles in length). I have been fortunate enough to visit London a few times, but am by no means an expert on it, so I defer to your judgment on this. However, what I was trying to do above was use the information you provided in this FAC (i.e. the distances to London Stone and Charing Cross and differentiating between direct and rail distances). I have thought about this a fair amount and I believe the simplest thing to do would be to give the rough time and distance of a rail journey from this station to "London", since that is what is most relevant to the article. How long would it have taken a passenger who boarded a train at this stop to get to "London", and what distance would that journey have been? It also occurs to me that there is probably a prominent station in London that could be used as the end point of the journey - my guess is Baker Street or Kings Cross St Pancras would be the best known. I would not include an "as the crow flies" distance, since this is ana article about a station used by humans, not crows. So again as a suggestion only, to try and give you my idea: Thus, despite it being X miles (Y km) by rail and over two hours travel from STATION Z in [some part of] London, Wood Siding became a London Underground station.[27] I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support by Ruhrfisch. Very nicely done and an interesting read. I have two quibbles, which do not detract from my support.
 * In the lead, the sentence As a result, Wood Siding became a station on the London Underground network, despite being over 40 miles (60 km) from central London. seems needlessly vague on the distance. The article later gives a more exact figure (45 miles, 72 km) which I would use here. I also note that 40 miles is 64 km, and the actual distance is thus 12 km greater than the 60 km stated in the lead.
 * Basically, any precise figure will be wrong, so the figures are intentionally very vague. The track didn't run in a straight line, and from Wood Siding to the City of London was around 55 miles, depending on where exactly in the city one was going and what route one took. London is a polycentric city, and there's no set definition of "central London"; as the crow flies, Wood Siding is 75.4 km (about 47 miles) from the Metropolitan Railway's city terminus at Aldgate, 74.4 km (about 46 miles) from the London Stone (the historic datum point for distances from London), 72.5km (45 miles) from Charing Cross (the current datum point for distance from London), 68 km (42 miles) from the edge of Travelcard Zone 1 (the generally-accepted edge of "central London" for transport articles), and 61 km (38 miles) from the A406 road, which is generally considered as the boundary between inner and outer London. – iride scent  17:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I understand that London is not a point ;-), but I still have two nitpicky issues here. One is that 40 miles is not equal to 60 km, so if you know can do conversions in your head and read this, it is jarring. I read this and thought "60 klicks is more like 36 miles than 40, this is an error". Then I stopped and calculated it to make sure - it distracted me from the article. The second thing is if it is unclear, why not give a range or some idea of the values possible? My strong guess is that the Travelcard Zones and A406 both post-date the 1935 removal of the station, so I doubt people of the day would have used them for calculating distances (though modern readers might). The article also specifies the City of London as the destination, so it is not as uncertain as ring roads and travel zones imply. So why not write something like Thus Wood Siding became a London Underground station, despite it being about 55 mi by rail and over two hours travel from the City of London, and 46.2 mi from the London Stone as the crow flies.[27]
 * I'm a bit reluctant to; the City (the old centre of London to which these trains ran) is quite a distance from the West End (the place most people would consider "central London", then and now). How about getting rid of the distance altogether and just using the "two hours"? I'm reluctant to use the London Stone as any kind of marker; I'd wager that the majority of people in London, let alone anywhere else, have no idea what or where it is (as previously mentioned, "distance from London" is always nowadays taken to mean distance from Charing Cross). – iride scent  20:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was following the article as written in specifying the City: Thus, despite it being 45 miles (72 km) and over two hours travel from the City of London, Wood Siding became a London Underground station.[27] I think it is useful to have both the time and some distance(s) relative to London, but defer to your judgment. Would it be better to give both the distance as the crow flies from Charing Cross (since that is what most people today expect) and the rough distance by rail and time to the City of London, since that was the terminus of the rail line? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make was "it was nowhere near London, but was still formally part of the London Underground". Distance from the City won't work in that context, as the City is some way east-of-centre; parts of West London are up to 20 miles from the City. To my eyes, mentioning Charing Cross will make things more confusing. – iride scent  21:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that historic London contains no railway stations (or indeed railways), other than the relatively minor Thameslink, as they were banned throughout the rail boom and thus were all built in the countryside—the London Underground was invented in the first place as a means of linking the railway stations to the populated areas. The late-19th-century boundary of London can be traced quite neatly by following the line of railway stations (including the two you mention) outside the former boundary. I imagine most readers of this will have come from the Brill Tramway parent article, in which this is explained, so a travel time to (say) Kings Cross will immediately prompt a "but that wasn't in London then" response. How about "45 miles and two hours travel from the City of London"? – iride scent  23:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is fine with me - I only avoided "City of London" as you had seemed against using it above. Also, and this is likely my ignorance showing, but I meant the underground stations on the Metropolitan Line, which I presume this connected with in someway. I checked the articles on the two stations I mentioned and I thought that they were both built before this became part of the MR. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I try to avoid "City of London" when I can, due to the potential for confusion for people who aren't familiar with the oddities of the difference between the City of London, the city of London, the County of London and Greater London, but on reflection I think it's reasonable as the least confusing option. – iride scent  08:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have struck above - since City of London is wikilinked, I think that helps avoid confusion too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two places that use fractional miles then decimal kilometers, which look odd / inconsistent to me: "a surviving fragment of Bernwood Forest 1 1⁄2 miles (2.4 km) from the town of Brill" and "the foot of Brill Hill 3⁄4 of a mile (1.2 km) from the hilltop town of Brill itself". Is there any reason not use decimals miles too? Note that I am OK with "a total of 105 1⁄2 passenger fares" as there is no decimal following it to make it look incongrous.
 * It's just the way convert outputs; at present, it converts fractional imperial distances into decimal metric distances. The fractions are correct in this context; British railways distances are always expressed as fractions, rather than as decimals. (Technically, they ought to be given in chains, but I've avoided those as so few non-specialists know what they mean.) – iride scent  17:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, if that is the convention, then it is fine by me. I know about chains, but am much more comfortable with miles and km. Thanks for the explanation. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS The iamges are all fine - there is one fair use image, which is nicely justified, and the rest are free for use here. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.