Talk:Northern line extension to Battersea/GA1

GA Review

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_line_extension_to_Battersea/GA1&oldid=1142380314"