Talk:Pimlico tube station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 08:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and return to the lead at the end. Can I suggest that you mark any issues fixed with comments or maybe the  Done template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text difficult to read at a later date, and it is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   • "there was concern it would be financially viable ..." This should surely be "there was concern it would not be financially viable ..." Bob1960evens (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
   • "there was a strong local support for a station" Should be "there was strong local support..." Bob1960evens (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
   • "it gave better access to the Tate Gallery" Better access than what? Suggest expanding a little. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
   • "the station was chosen to be the test for 'Wayfindr'" Suggest chosen to be the test site for 'Wayfindr'. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
   • "The app was successful" Suggest this should be "The trial was successful", since the app presumably depends on the installation of iBeacon devices, and it is these that need to be installed at other stations for the app to function well. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

     I've copyedited all these suggestions, which are all good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

   • "It is the deepest station on the line." I think this needs just a little more explanation. Your addition of the depth of the platforms has helped somewhat, but it feels a bit like questions on QI, where they redefine the meaning of "deep" so that the answer that everyone knows is no longer correct. Maybe "It is the lowest station on the line measured by the average depth of the platforms below sea-level, which is 16 metres (52 ft)" or something similar. It needs to be more obvious why there is a difference between this and the previously stated depth. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

     The source given notes "Hampstead is only so deep because it's underneath a massive hill. This gives it an unfair advantage you might say. If you look at it differently and take the deepest station in terms of the deepest below sea level you get a completely different answer." but I think that's somewhat off-topic to mention in the article body. Do you think it would suffice as a footnote? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

     I don't think it is necessary to mention Hampstead at all, now that you have reworked the text to move the mention of sea level as the base line. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   • Page numbers for Butt (1995) are not right. I think they should be 36,185. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

     I don't have a copy of Butt or Day & Reed; I used copies from the library which are "reference only". All I have for Butt is a note on my phone with stations and page numbers which I transcribed one afternoon so I could cite them later in good faith. Redrose64 has a copy and can check these. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

     I have a copy, hence my note, so I will alter the page numbers. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

   • Day & Reed p167 is used to support "Pimlico is the only station on the Victoria line which does not have an interchange with another Underground or National Rail line" but I cannot find any mention of Pimlico on p167. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

     I think this is just an error; the source is only citing the lack of interchanges, which can be observed on any tube map, so I've removed that Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

   • Standard tube map 2023 is used to support Pimlico being the only station not having step-free access on the Victoria line. However, Stockwell, Oxford Circus and Warren Street are also shown without the wheelchair symbol, and stations to the east of Kings Cross are debatable. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

     I think I know what was intended here; theoretically on any other Victoria line station you can change to a different line and go to another station which does have step free access. I admit I'm a little out of touch on step-free access these days since my kids are old enough to not require a pushchair (and have been for quite some time). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   • The article seems to me to be a little sparse in terms of coverage. There are images of two entrances, but no discussion of how many there actually are (three), where they are, whether there is a sub-surface ticket hall, how many platforms there are, the physical layout of the platforms, and how they are accessed. All of this seems to be readily available from reliable sources.

     Indeed, as I said when I nominated this, "I can't think of anything else to write about this". For example, The Victoria Line – A Short History by M.A.C. Horne denotes half a page to Pimlico, The Story of London's Underground by Day / Reed has a few sentences, while The Subterranean Railway: How the London Underground Was Built and How It Changed the City Forever by Christian Wolmar doesn't mention it at all. I've added some information from Transport for London's Axonometric maps, but that's all the source information I have. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

   • There is no discussion of the decorative scheme for the station. All Victoria Line stations had their own motifs, and there is a picture of that for Pimlico, but no discussion of who designed it, or some of the issues. There is a good discussion in Lawrence, David (1994). Underground Architecture. Capital Transport. ISBN 978-1-85414-160-6. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

     Unfortunately, I don't have that book and there's no preview on Google Books. However, I have found number of London Transport Museum sources which do talk about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

     I have taken the liberty of expanding your additions based on the content of Lawrence, and added the book to the bibliography. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

     Thanks for that, that's helpful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

   b. (focused):

   • "a passenger was hit by a train." This incident was more serious than the article suggests, since the source clearly states that the passenger died at the station. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

     I don't think it does. All the source refers to is a "casualty on the track" which could be a serious, but not fatal, injury, and "We await confirmation from London Ambulance service about whether the two incidents are connected." I can't find a BBC News source about this incident, which is something of a concern. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

     The source that is used to support the text includes a quote from the London Ambulance Service which states "We were called at 2:47pm today (2 December) to reports of a person injured by a train at Pimlico Underground Station, City of Westminster. We sent an ambulance crew, an advanced paramedic, an incident response officer and our hazardous area response team (HART) to the scene. We also dispatched London's Air Ambulance. Sadly, despite the efforts of medics, a person died at the scene." Bob1960evens (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

     Aha, I know why I missed that, it was in an "updates" section, which I mistook for a "comments" section and concluded "user-generated opinion, don't cite". I've found a second news source about this incident, which makes me a bit more comfortable including it in the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

All of the issues raised by the review have now been addressed, so I am awarding the article GA status. Thanks for your prompt response to the points mentioned, and I hope you agree that the review process has resulted in some improvements to the content. It has been a pleasure working with you.

I note that most of the external links take you to a page that says 403 Forbidden and a load of gobbledegook, but this appears to be a general problem with the LTM collection template, and affects all of the 267 pages that use it. It is not a simple fix either, since as well as changing the path, LTM seem to have changed all the names of the images, and I have failed to find what the new names are in 3 out of the 4 cases. This will not affect the GA status, but it may be worth seeing if there is a way to get the template fixed as a separate issue. Keep up the good work. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for a good review, inspiring me to do more work on the article, expand it, and make it better - exactly what GAN is about, in my view. I'll have a word about the LTM template, as that's been in place a long time and it's a shame it's broken as it provides images we cannot host directly because of copyright concerns. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)