Talk:Highgate tube station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 11:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest.

Comments

A few points on prose. Mostly matters of style, and not crucial for promotion to GA, but worth considering, I hope:

• Lead
  • "on Archway Road" – it seems a pity to use the Americanism instead of the traditional British "in Archway Road". (I suspect that the Americanism is starting to invade these shores, but let us repel it as long as we can.)  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I saw someone commenting on this elsewhere on wikipedia the other day and can't say I had ever really noticed this as an issue before, but I don't have a problem with either of the two. Reflecting on this, I think that my usage tends to be towards the use of "on" where the road or street name is derived from a place (e.g. "Archway Road", "London Road") and "in" where the name comes from another source (e.g. "Smith Lane", "Brown Street"). This may come from the sense of movement that comes from talking about a road derived from a place name as being on the way to somewhere, whereas the others feel more static. Nevertheless, I'm happy for the change to be made and see Vincent has done this for us.--DavidCane (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Wartime
  • Unusual to see "second world war" uncapitalised. Looks very odd to me.  Done plus changing wikilink to avoid redirect Vincent60030 (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • OK.--DavidCane (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Post War
  • We use sentence case for section headings (capitalising only the first word, except for proper nouns). Besides, the Oxford English Dictionary prescribes "Post-war" (with hyphen) as the proper form.  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • OK. Missed that one.--DavidCane (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Designed by architect Charles Holden" – another Americanism, the false title. All right for tabloid newspapers, but a bit tacky for an encyclopedia, in my view. Adding "the" after "by" removes the problem. Ditto for "feature film Paperhouse and television series EastEnders"  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Again, not one that I have a problem with changing, though the last two seem more like descriptions that false titles.--DavidCane (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Services
  • You're likely to fall foul of WP:DATED here. I recommend saying that these are the details as at 2015. I suppose bus routes change, so perhaps the same goes for the Connections section.  Done Vincent60030 (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • OK.--DavidCane (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Note 10
  • I think "commissioned sculpture Eric Aumonier" is a typo for "commissioned sculptor Eric Aumonier" (which would itself benefit from a definite article before "sculptor".)
    • Yes, that's a typo following a sentence revision.--DavidCane (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That's all. The article seems to me to cover its topic clearly and thoroughly, and to meet GA standards, If you'll consider the few drafting points above we can move to a swift conclusion, I think. I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold for such minor and easily-dealt-with points. – Tim riley talk 11:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing Tim and making the edits Vincent.--DavidCane (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You're welcome, David. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Good work! A pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 23:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Unwanted Americanisms

Why change the British "in So-and-so Street" to the American "on So-and-so Street". I've just run "in Downing Street" and "on Downing Street" through the archive search of The Times. In, the customary form, wins by 8,293 to 238. We should resist this American incursion. I have reverted to the British version accordingly. Tim riley talk 14:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Like Vincent60030 (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I screwed up. I will only make things worse if I try to explain precisely how or discuss this point further. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions/queries

• In the first sentence after the subhead "Post-war" we say: "After the war, plans to complete the New Works projects were reviewed." This sounds as if by that place in the article we already know what the New Works projects are, but we don't as this is the first time it's mentioned - maybe a connection formerly made between this wording and the Northern Heights plan has gone? Can this be painlessly resolved?
  • Well spotted. I think that this is a left over from earlier edits. The Northern Heights project was one element of the New Works Programme, which was the network-wide scheme of improvements for the Underground announced in the mid-1930s. I've changed the wording to avoid confusion.--DavidCane (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• At the end of the penultimate paragraph of the same section it says "When works were finished in 1957, a single, upwards only, escalator was provided to a simple high level exit." I'm a little confused by "high level" here unless it is a term of art meaning "anything higher than the station", because it's at street level when you get there. I do see that it's at a high level compared to the car park and Priory Gardens; I'm just unsure whether "high level exit" is the best way to refer to it.
  • Yes, it is as it is used differentiate between the current deep-level and the former high-level station. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the reply. I don't follow that logic exactly: it is an exit from the below-ground concourse so it currently serves the tube station; if the plans had been finished, it would have served both - so how is it or was it high-level? In the article, we do refer to the tube as the deep-level station, but we do not anywhere else call the surface platforms high level - I think we mostly say surface, or LNER or whatever. High-level in station terms doesn't usually mean street level to me, but something higher or at least high in contrast with something else. We don't have this here when we are talking about a tube station exit. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually Vincent, this is not what I mean by "high level" in this context. For a long time, the article talked about high-level (surface) and low-level (tube) stations, but this was changed, correctly in my view, by Chris J Wood in February. The terms "high level" and "low level" are used occasionally in the UK where a station is on two levels (typically where lines in different directions cross). Examples in London include Stratford station and Willesden Junction station. For Highgate, the term "high level" for the surface platforms was misleading, as the station is in a cutting and, from most directions, is actually below natural ground level. My use of "high-level" is with regard to the exit at the top of the cutting only. I'll rephrase this to be clearer.--DavidCane (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
        • There are cases where the terms refer to stations which are physically separate and not merely different parts of the same station - at Wolverhampton for example, where Wolverhampton High Level is the present station, losing that suffix in May 1973 - over a year after Wolverhampton Low Level had closed (March 1972). Other cases include Crystal Palace High Level (closed 1954) and Crystal Palace Low Level (still open, as Crystal Palace, being renamed in 1955); Quaker's Yard High Level (closed 1964) and Quaker's Yard Low Level (open, renamed 1968). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• In the same paragraph, is "Referencing the local legend" the most appropriate BrE way to say this? It has a slight ring of "Verbing the Noun" to it, to my ear at least.
  • I'll look at rephrasing this as well.--DavidCane (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for the helpful responses to these. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)