Talk:Morden tube station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 18:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll give this a go. For what it's worth, if I fancy visiting Denmark Street on a Sunday (as I do), it can be simpler to drive as far as here, park on a back street, and take the Northern Line to TCR. Anyway, I digress.

• Thanks for taking the time.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• "is the most southerly station on the Underground network". This claim doesn't appear to be in the body, and I'm not sure it's correct. Depending also on what you qualify as "on the Underground network", I think West Croydon station on the terminus of the East London Line is further south.

  West Croydon is further south, but it is a mainline station and tramlink stop rather than an Underground station. Since its transfer to the London Overground network, the East London Line is no longer part of the London Underground, although, because TfL is the franchise operator for London Overground services, it is shown on the tube map.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  I understand your reasoning, but the layman reader who isn't aware of TfL's history may look at a typical tube map (this was the top hit for an image search for "tube map") and wonder if West Croydon was a bit further south. In any case, the important part is this claim for being the most southern station isn't expanded in the body. Perhaps the explanation with the brief history of the East London line could go in a footnote? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  That "typical tube map" is toplogical - you can't judge whether one place is "north" or "south" of another using that diagram alone. It doesn't have a legend showing what the various line styles and colours mean. The route down to West Croydon is a double orange line (as are several other routes going as far north as Watford Junction); these double orange lines are the London Overground system. It's also out of date, because it omits the Overground route between Clapham Junction and Surrey Quays. TfL's own website is a better place to look, where we find that the London Overground is a distinct system. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a footnote is the way to go. I appreciate the difference between Underground and Overground as you describe but for the non-enthusiast, particularly for somewhere like Kew Gardens tube station which carries both the District and North London lines on the same track, things are a little less obvious. Particularly since a travel or Osyter card abstracts away the relevance of separate systems to the end user; who's just going from A to B. Anyway, I think I'm going off at a tangent. I guess in my head I pictured a stereotypical American tourist asking "is this the way to "Lie-chest-terr Square"?" and played a bit of devil's advocate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The station was one of the first modernist designs" - the phrase "modernist" doesn't appear in the body
  • I have added this along with a quote from Pick describing his reason for choosing Holden as the architect.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Services and connections

• I'd combine these short sections and move them to the top. Opinions vary, but when I look at a station article, at a first glance I'll want to know roughly where it is, how much it costs (which for London means the Travelcard zone), and what it connects to (ie: Northern Line). I'd also add a brief description of what other things are nearby, most obviously Morden Hall Park which is just round the corner.
  • I've combined the sections, but I think they are better where they are. The line and travel zone and next station are all stated in the first paragraph of the lead. The fare zone is also in the info box.
  • As you say, Morden Hall Park is nearby. I've added a couple of other local locations.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

History

• What is the rationale for wikilinking the Underground Electric Railways Company of London as the "Underground Group"?
  • The UERL was known by including "the Combine" and "the Group". I think when I did the very early draft of this article years ago, I used Group and I carried on with this when I expanded it. I've change it to UERL which is what I use elsewhere including in my UERL, Holden and Pick articles.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Does "underwrite" need a link here?
  • I think it helps with explaining that the government was backing the loans raised by the UERL.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• "The Underground Group wished to maximise its use of the government's time-limited financial backing" - I expect this is buried in the semi-legalese in the London Gazette, but could you point me exactly to where this claim is verified?
  • This comes from Barman, where he discusses Frank Pick's analysis of a number of proposals for extensions to tube lines. Most of these were stymied in some way or another through legal agreements with mainline companies and needed time to resolve. The act initially had a time limit of 12 months for applications from companies wanting to obtain backing and the Morden extension was one of the options he could push forward in the time available. I've added a reference.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• What claim is this poster verifying?
  • It shows the names of the two stations proposed at that time for Morden: "North Morden" and "South Morden". These are visible if you click on the "enlarge image" link.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think "hub", "bus" and "suburban" need wikilinks
  • Agreed; and I don't think that London or Surrey need linking either as these are covered earlier. I think these have been sitting there for a while.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• "The UERL" - this acronym doesn't appear to be defined anywhere
  • Now defined where I have changed the "Underground Group".--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Station building

• "opened on 13 September 1926" - the book source here needs a page number
  • The source is in folded map format, so does not have any pages.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm a little sceptical that the majority of claims in the second half of the first paragraph are all properly sourced - could you check?
  • Apart from the original inclusion of passimeters (which is what Badsey-Ellis source is for) the rest can be seen in the photographs on the page. Two of the pictures in the London Borough of Merton archive in the external links section show the passimeters.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• "though this did not come until the 1960s" - the source given says "circa 1960" which is a slightly different emphasis. For example, 1959 is "circa 1960" but 1969 is "the 1960s". There's quite a bit more in this source about the station (such as it being largely unchanged since 1934) which might be worth adding.
  • I'm happy with circa 1960, though other anecdotal sources indicate it was the early 1960s and the text accompanying one of the photos of the station on the London Transport Museum website says that the work was completed in 1963. I was trying to avoid using to many photographs as sources.
  • I'm not sure that I agree that it has not changed much. The front facade has been restored and tiling on the walls has been replaced with facsimiles of the original, but the over bridges that were original concrete with solid tiled sides have been replaces, lifts have been added and a large air rights building has been constructed across the station cutting. --DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• "Unlike the other stations built for the extension" - do you mean the Northern Line as is now?
  • I mean the extension of the C&SLR from Clapham South to Morden. All of the stations on this extension were designed by Holden.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• "Three tracks run through the station...." - most of this sentence doesn't seem to be in the TfL source cited
  • Again, photographs show all of this. The source is just for the way TfL describes the platform numbering.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• "Cosmetic improvements carried out at the same time..." - this sentence doesn't appear to have a source
  • As mentioned in the note, photographs of the station in the 1950s show that the pole mounted roundels disappeared in the mid 1950s. More recent ones show them reappearing around 2007 and they are shown in the top image in the infobox. I've tried to find a formal source, but haven't been able to.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• "Pole mounted roundels were used on all of the stations on the Morden extension...." - this footnote doesn't appear to have a source
  • Photos from the opening of the extension show these on all of the stations, but I will see if I can find a source that describes the stations that also mentions these.--DavidCane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary

• All the issues reported seem to be fairly minor and easy to resolve. The biggest concern I have is for unverifiable content, but I'm happy to believe that's easy enough to find. I'll put the review on hold pending improvements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through everything and added a few additional sources. I think everything's in order now to meet the GA criteria, so I can pass the review. Well done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those changes and additional sources. I was going to source the listed status for the other stations on the line to English Heritage's National Heritage List for England, but I could not get their search engine to give me a set of results for just those six stations and I didn't want to add six individual references to cite a single note.--DavidCane (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)