Talk:Blackfriars station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 14:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this one; should have time to look at it this weekend. Canadian Paul 14:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

A few comments:

1. Under "Location": "Blackfriars station is unique in that it..." This sentence held me up because it seemed somewhat superfluous (after all, the location of stations is always unique) until I read the source itself (and later the lead, which I always read last) and realized that the uniqueness comes from it being the first (only?) to cross the Thames. I would reword this to something like "As the first station to cross the River Thames, Blackfriars is unique..." I know that's somewhat close paraphrasing, but unfortunately the sentence is problematic without highlighting the thing that makes it actually unique.

   I've trimmed it down to "Blackfriars station straddles the River Thames, running across the length of" - a straight description is probably fine, the reader can determine it's unique by the fact it spans over a river Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

2. If one skipped the lead and started reading just the "Location" section, it's conceivable that they could believe at first that it was just a bus station, since nowhere does it state that the station is primarily a railway station. In other words, applying a little WP:OBVIOUS would help in terms of 1a and the clarity of prose.

   Added "Blackfriars station serves Thameslink rail services that connect suburbs with central London" - that should sort it out

3. Under "London, Chatham and Dover Railway". "Progress across the river was delayed because the Corporation of London were unsure as to what the bridge should look like, and how many arches there should be." I know there's a Wikilink there, but this sentence would be confusing to anyone who doesn't realize that "Corporation of London" actually refers to a government body rather than a private entity, as I suspect would be the case for most North Americans and non-native English speakers. I think that piping it to something like "London municipal government" would make it clear who had the problem and why they had an interest in the matter.

   I've dropped in a clarifying "City's controlling government". I can recommend this video that describes the unique situation the City of London is in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

4. Just a general comment, and probably nothing actionable, but as North American who lived in London for six months, I still found the distinction between what was happening between the overground and underground lines unclear in the "History" section - in fact, I didn't even realize that it had both for a while, and things got a little bit more muddled when the bridge was closed but the underground was still open etc. I think that someone who has no clue about London's public transportation would be a bit confused on the matter. I feel like applying a little WP:OBVIOUS in the paragraphs might help, but since I can't put my finger on what the problem is, I can't really hold it against a GA pass, but I thought I'd mention it since it does fit in with the "prose" criteria for GA. Also, I wrote this before I got to the "Underground station" part at the end of the article, which made things clearer, so I feel just an explicit mention that there is an overground and underground early on, per WP:OBVIOUS, would be beneficial.

   The history of Blackfriars is complicated, and not helped by nearby stations having the same name. I've dropped a mention of the District line station to fit the chronological order that's there, and hopefully the map helps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

5. Perhaps points 2 and 4 are related to WP:LEAD, which states that no material should be present in the lead that isn't present in the body, and the first sentence of the lead is sort of implied in the body rather than explicitly stated. This is fine, of course, but I'm mainly highlighting it to show how an explicit statement like that early on in the body would facilitate the reader's comprehension. The fact that the station is also known as "London Blackfriars", however, is not mentioned anywhere in the body and should be, with an appropriate citation. Also, in terms of the final sentence of the lead ("The new station has been well-received as an example of transport improvements around London."), I'm not sure that the second part of that sentence is actually a claim made in the body, but maybe I'm wrong?

   I've added a footnote for the official name, and removed the last sentence in the lead (as it doesn't really mean anything). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

6. Also per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the most important points and I feel that, if "Accidents" is going to be its own section, than some mention of it should be made it in the lead, however brief.

   I don't think any of the accidents are particularly important to mention here; certainly not compared to the Moorgate tube crash, the King's Cross fire or the Ladbroke Grove rail crash. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

7. Under "Station rebuild", I feel like the last two paragraphs should be flipped for flow, as the first talks about a proposed plan for the future, while the second talks about the reception of the rebuild (i.e. the past plan), but I thought I'd hear what you think rather than just doing it myself.

   I've reorded this paragraph a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Finally, this is not something that is part of the GA criteria, just something to think about, but I feel that the sentence that begins with "What is now Blackfriars station..." under "London, Chatham and Dover Railway" is a violation of WP:DATED, and could be rephrased to something like "What was known as Blackfriars station from 1937 on..." or "What was to become known as Blackfriars station..." Same thing "only the piers in the river and the orange bridge abutments remain," under "Southern Railway and Southern Region", which could have an "as of 2015" tacked on to the end to avoid the problem. But again, aside from that being probably just a personal preference, it's definitely not a GA requirement, just something I thought I'd mention since I was reviewing the article anyways. In any case, I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 12:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I've changed "what is now" to "The mainline Blackfriars station". I feel it's unlikely anything's going to happen to the pier abutments of the old bridge, barring acts of nature, so I don't really think it's going to be a problem leaving that in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul: Sorry, I took a week off this place so I've only seen this just now, I'm working through the issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: No problem. Despite the text wall above, there's actually not that much to look into for GA. Plus it's essentially Wikipedia law that a GA will get reviewed as soon as you don't have time to address it. Canadian Paul 11:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll get round to the other issues sometime today or tomorrow. I've also got hold of some books to work on some other articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've addressed some more issues. Hopefully that makes things a bit clearer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Great. I don't see anything else that would disqualify it as a Good Article, so I am going to go ahead and pass it as such. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 11:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)