Talk:Northern line extension to Battersea

Northern line extension to Battersea has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 2, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Northern line extension to Battersea appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 October 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the tunnel boring machines that dug the London's new Northern line extension were named after the first British astronaut Helen Sharman, and British aviation pioneer Amy Johnson? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northern line extension to Battersea.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

London Transport Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Trains Low‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Really? Seeing as there's no TWA order, and Wandsworth Council couldn't possibly approve the station in Nine Elms as it's in Lambeth, not Wandsworth, I don't think this is accurate. Marklesparkle (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "(recently approved)" text as it was misleading. Specifically it is the redevelopment of the power station site that has been approved, and this approval is based on (or contingent on, I'm not clear which) the funding for the construction of the Northern Line extension. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This station is mentioned on the page of the US Embassy which intends to move out of Grosvenor Square. Reading that they have three storeys underground there, one would assume that they'd want that at the new site, too. Their underground activities and a new tube line smell like a good fit to me. But this is on only a hunch. The complicated process that a new US embassy has to go through explains delays there and if that's indeed linked, explains the delay with the tube. Maybe another link is missing in the chain of information. 121.209.56.38 (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know where on the Battersea Power Station site the proposed station will be built? Presumably as close to Battersea Park Road as possible? It would seem to make sense to me to site it almost on top of the Battersea Dogs Home - presumably as far west as possible? But this would make too much sense. And this is just a guess - no doubt it could easily be sited in a stupid location. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.37.206 (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the Northern line extension public inquiry Proposed fare zone structure 12 December 2013: www.persona.uk.com/nle/D-Proofs/TFL87.PDF

Explaining the benefit of making Kennington a Zone 1/2 station.

However, on the tfl website, it still says the two new stations will be in Zone 2.

Jsmallwo (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if somebody who has the requisite subscription could verify this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this 6 June 2014 Metro newspaper article, both stations are going to be Zone 1 stations - but that assumes the reporter knows what she is talking about: http://metro.co.uk/2014/06/06/nine-elms-regeneration-is-changing-this-london-riverside-district-for-the-better-4752149/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.149.183 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Kennington will become a Zone 1/2 boundary station if nine elms will be a zone1? I can't find a reference to this anywhere though.

(...and perhaps someone clever can do a new map putting nine elms in zone1.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmallwo (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 November 2014‎

Some clues here. So actually maybe Battersea itself will also be Zone 1? http://questions.london.gov.uk/QuestionSearch/searchclient/questions/question_277016 http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.be/2014_07_01_diamondgeezer_archive.html Jsmallwo (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have they said how many trains per hour they plan to run on this spur? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.88.105.99.71 (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@88.105.99.71: it should be the same as on the Charing Cross branch, so roughly 24tph in the peaks, 18tph offpeak. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if its only me but I get a 404 when I click on the tunnelling completed link to Evening Standard? - 1.02 editor (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, are you clicking on the link directly or copying and pasting? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking the link directly. -1.02 editor (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the line appears to have been in the final stages of testing and the intended opening is more than a year away, can it be assumed that the opening is likely to be on track (assuming the lockdown is eased in the next few months)? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the current Covid-19 crisis, who knows what will happen. Let's wait and see for some official news when it eventually comes out.Turini2 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latest update [1] was shortly before the shutdown. One can deduce some of the factors (how essential the extension is considered to be, how much can be done during the lockdown, and what has to be done during 'open seasons' - which may be of varying lengths).

Just in case the WP-transport group were more up to date. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a source for speculation. Unless there is a reliable source with citations that can suggest otherwise, the opening date on the page should remain as is. Sidesix (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly 'still on schedule despite the Covid-19 crisis' would have sufficed - or, now, 'there were no delays in opening the extension despite the Covid-19 crisis' (given that elections, Olympics and other events were so delayed). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bazza 7 and I have removed a map (link here) that seems to suggest that the extension will continue to Clapham Junction. It does not, as is clear throughout the article. A future extension to Clapham Junction is not currently proposed by TfL or other local bodies. Any suggestion that an extension will be built (such as any theoretical extension of any other Tube line in future) is WP:CRYSTAL. We don't know what will happen in future. Further issues with the map include incorrect line colours (white) and the old label for the now Battersea Power Station station. The RDT map shows the route of the line (and the "reserved course" of a theoretical extension) much better. Do others have thoughts? Turini2 (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of Clapham Junction is a major fault as this seems to have been abandoned for the present. Not showing the full name for Battersea is a minor fault and I see nothing wrong with showing the extension in a different colour to indicate that it is not part of the old line. My reason for reverting was that the map does show how the new stations fit into the network, whereas the other map is so confusing that it is useless to readers and should be deleted. How about using the map below, which does at least remove the main fault? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: I deleted the "Northern line extension to Battersea" map when it was recaptioned "This is what the tube map will look like", which is WP:CRYSTAL. The map showing the extension terminating at Clapham Junction is also WP:CRYSTAL, so it should not be used. Your proposed map has several issues: it suggests the line terminates at a station called Battersea, which is wrong (it's Battersea Power Station); the white section should be labelled "extension" or redrawn using the conventional dashed line (as at [2], which would suffice as a WP:RS); the pale blue background (presumably a fare zone indication) is unexplained and should be removed; and the river need labelling. If those issues are remedied, and the map captioned correctly in the article (something like "Northern line extension to Battersea"), then I'm good with it. Alternatively, use Template:Maplink or similar to show a geographically accurate map of the extension. (I'm not very familiar with that, but could be persuaded to be if nobody else wanted to play.) Bazza (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The line in white can be fixed by adding a caption "extension shown in white". The other issues are minor and very few people will notice them. The bottom line is that readers should have a map showing the new line and the one currently in the article is confusing and unhelpful. Of course if you are happy to do a better map that would be very helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for this to be re-added - if possible the issues mentioned should be fixed, but I don't think the map should be removed because of them! Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is no map showing the new line clearly, so I suggest replacing the current confusing map with the one above, pending replacement by a better map. Bazza 7 are you happy with this? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Yes, I'm fine with that one; the versions with the CJ map ([3]) and non-CJ map with a crystal ball caption ([4] are the ones which are misleading. Bazza (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this article will be very popular in the next little while in the run up to the opening date on the 20th September. Do we want to have a go at rewriting and reworking this article to have more details? Similar to Bakerloo line extension for example? Who, when and why was the extension proposed, some history on the Battersea Power Station redevelopment, consultation history (why doesn't it go to X, what other places were considered?), construction history, architecture design & artworks, planned opening, service levels, cost of extension etc etc. Turini2 (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great idea if you are willing to undertake it. I would keep down the length of 'consultation history (why doesn't it go to X, what other places were considered?)', which will only be of specialist interest and just give a brief summary on Battersea Power Station as it has its own article. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I had a good first go at this - I'll be back, but feel free to edit further :) Turini2 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Background into Power Station and northern line extensions (lack of them!)
• Development of scheme in 2000s - confirm that it was idea of private developer
• History 2010s - initial consultation and further consultations
• History public inquiry
• History Construction of extension
• Route, stations
• Architecture and art
• Accessibility
• Cost of extension and who's paying
• Supporters/detractors
• Zones of station
• Service levels
• Benefits of extension (journey time etc)
• Extension to Clapham Junction - actual references for it
• Better pictures and diagrams Well, I had a good search of Flickr and geograph, and there's now a diagram. I guess we need to wait until the extension is opened for shots of station/surroundings etc.Turini2 (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I'm mostly finished with my edits and improvements to this article - any thoughts? Suggestions? Turini2 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the extension is operational, should it be removed from Category:Proposed extensions to the London Underground? It is not now a proposed extension as it has been built, but I suppose an argument could be made that as the page mentions the mooted future extension to Clapham Junction that part of it still covers a proposed extension. Dunarc (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - made changes to the categories Turini2 (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think it works better. Dunarc (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do people think about nominating this as a good article? Any thoughts? Turini2 (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My only thought is that the lead doesn't adequately summarises the article, in terms of its length (too short for the length of the article); other than that, I think pretty much everything is sourced and so on. (I think, with the lead, MOS:CITELEAD (that the lead should or shouldn't contain citations) is up for discussion). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Northern line extension to Battersea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turini2, feel free to address the issues described below while I dive into prose and comprehensiveness. We should be able to get this to GA together! :) —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811 Will do, thanks! Turini2 (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turini2, do you still have time available to respond to comments/suggestions right now? Noticed you haven't made any changes since the 23rd. If you are busy IRL or otherwise, just let me know and I can put the review on hold for a couple of weeks to allow time for changes to be made. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I need a few dedicated hours to plough though this, and I was busy last weekend. Shall I ping you around the 13th February? Thanks again for your help in this. Turini2 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it on hold for a week and check back in after that! No rush. Ping me when you're done with these suggestions or if you have any questions. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turini2! I see 10mmsocket has made some improvements in the prior week, but almost all of the comments below are still unaddressed. Will you have time in the near future to work on this article again? —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have time this evening, so I'll get started! Turini2 (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will come back to this tomorrow - have started with a load of references Turini2 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turini2, thanks for the reference work. A lot of issues are still unaddressed. Would another week on hold to allow you time to make changes be helpful? —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yes! Turini2 (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's give it a week and reassess after the 25th. I'd like to wrap the review up shortly after that if possible. When these comments are addressed the only thing left will be prose, which I generally handle directly to save us both time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening review - some improvements have been made, but after another week on hold the issues below have not yet been fully addressed. The article was last edited on the 16th. Turini2, please see if you can get to them in the next few days (before the 28th) or I'll have to close out this review. Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have made some edits tonight - I'm free tomorrow, so should have time to finish these bits then. On the homestretch! Turini2 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll take a look at it tomorrow night. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turini2, your last edit summary indicated you planned to continue working on the lead/elsewhere. Are you continuing to make changes or should I take another look now? It'd be great to wrap up this review expeditiously. —Ganesha811 (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have made the final few changes I think - cutting out a little excess detail here and there. Not sure about the use of bullets in the Initial route consultation (2010) section - but it's clearer to read, regarding the various options. Let me know your thoughts. Turini2 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This article meets the GA standard! Congrats to Turini2 and all those editors who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are a ton of duplicate links - generally another page should be linked twice at most, once in the lead and once in the body. For instance, both Battersea and Battersea Power Station are linked twice in the lead - the second link should be removed for each. If you don't have the duplinks tool installed, it highlights all the duplicate links and makes eliminating them a lot easier. Have done so! There's a few duplications where I thought it would be useful - tables and the like - and I've edited the text slightly so more complicated terms appear where they are most useful (Transport and Works Act for example). Turini2 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] I'm still seeing quite a few duplicate links in the body of the text - e.g. Vauxhall, Victoria line, South West Main Line, Crossrail, River Thames, and a number of others. Please prune these away or, if there's some you want to keep, make a case for why. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Removed some more duplinks and made prose edits myself to save us both time. Pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I think the Benefits and Perspectives sections can be merged into a new section, perhaps called 'Impact'? If there's some material that doesn't fit perfectly under that heading it could be moved to elsewhere in the article as well. Have done so Turini2 (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] Issue addressed, pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Where missing, please add authors of news stories (at least a few from The Guardian, the Evening Standard, could be more). ModernRailways.com and Modern Railways are separate citations but the same article. Please merge and combine, and do a thorough check for other possible duplicates. Actioned. Turini2 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] Pass - the two citations now have quotes attached, so keeping them separate is ok, and it's now clear they are the same source.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I'm not sure icSouthLondon is a reliable source, and the primary link is dead. Probably best to find a more reliable source to replace it. Treasury Holdings deadlinks, and is not ideal anyway - if the information cited can be found elsewhere, remove and/or replace Embassy Magazine seems to be of dubious reliability. #41 (NorthernLineExtension.com) seems to be the main splash page, not a page with the information cited. What is TunnelTalk and what suggests that it is reliable? Nine Elms on the South Bank seems non-neutral, if reliable. Replace/remove as appropriate. #135 from TfL, "Property", is a generic link without the specific information cited. Replace/or remove information as appropriate. Is cite #151 needed? Seems unreliable (blog) and unnecessary. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] bullet 1 icSouthLondon was the website for the local Trinity Mirror newspapers in London - now a defunct website, but still a reliable source. Can't find anything similar, other than going to look at old newspapers! bullet 2 and 3 replaced, bullet 4 Oh that's interesting, I get the PDF with the right info? I have replaced with three references with quotes, bullet 5 Tunneltalk is an industry publication for the tunnelling industry, bullet 6 Agreed, have swapped, bullet 7 Oh the webpage got updated, so the information changed. Have reverted to archive and added quote. bullet 8 actioned. Turini2 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] Have now checked and moved a variety of citations - removing any duplicates and fixing dead links Issues addressed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found - pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	A couple of borrowed phrases that should be fixed per Earwig: "the first British astronaut, Helen Sharman, and British aviation pioneer Amy Johnson...first female pilot to fly solo" "regeneration of the Vauxhall, Nine Elms, and Battersea" - this one could be in quotes as an attributed opinion Have done so! Turini2 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] No further issues, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The lead is a little short for the length of the article. Incorporate some material from 'Background', 'Planning and development', 'Design', and 'Future'. It's at 139 words out of 4500 total - it could easily be extended to 300-400 words. Also, if you prefer, I recommend moving citations out of the lead (see WP:LEADCITE) to make it a little cleaner and easier to read. As long as all information is referenced somewhere in the body, it's acceptable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] Have done so - will look at it with fresh eyes tomorrow. Turini2 (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] I think expanding on the financing behind the project a little would be helpful. The unusual use of TIF (tax-increment financing) gained some attention in the press and in academia (see 1, 2, 3). Have done so. Turini2 (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] Issues addressed, pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article could use a bit of trimming and cleanup to remove superfluous detail and avoid any latent WP:PROSELINE issues. This is a bit more nebulous, so please ask for clarification or more detail if that would be helpful. Basically, it'd be great to go through the article and make sure it's at a high level of summarization, and that the details included are necessary to get across an encyclopedic idea of the subject. Bear in mind the WP:10YEARTEST. Some details, like these: "In 2014, an agreement was reached between TfL and the developers of Battersea Power Station to name the Battersea station "Battersea Power Station". This name first appeared during the December 2014 TfL Board meeting. The 4G network will also support the future Home Office Emergency Services Network, which will replace the current Airwave emergency services communication network. Ventilation shafts to serve the new tunnels were also proposed at Kennington Park and other locations could probably be done away with. Take a look at some Featured Articles for new transit lines to get an idea of what I'm talking about, such as MAX Red Line, and South Lake Union Streetcar. The article is in pretty good shape on summarization, and not too much work is needed to improve it, I think. Improving the narrative "flow" of the text will go a long way, making sure that the sentences are well-organized into cohesive paragraphs that cover distinct parts of the process. Again, if you have questions on this, since it is more subjective, just ask! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] Issues addressed to a satisfactory degree, meets GA standard. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues of neutrality found - some details to sort out re "Impact" but nothing that can't be handled in other sections. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no edit wars or outstanding issues from talk page.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Is there a particular reason File:Northern line extension to Battersea.jpg is used in the body rather than the infobox map again, which seems higher quality? Just to avoid repetition, I assume. I think using the infobox map twice is actually preferable in this case. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I think that was the logic there - I'll duplicate it. Turini2 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Issue addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.