Talk:Westminster tube station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

• This looks to be a quite reasonable article at or about GA-standard.

• I am now starting the detailed review. At this point I will be mostly concentrating on "problems", if any: so its a case, somewhat, of negative reporting, i.e. unless I specially highlight a specific section and problem(s), I'm happy with the section. As usual, I do the WP:Lead last. Pyrotec (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• History -
  • Sub-surface station' -

• Ref 3, Rose 1999, appears to be a book. It is called six times. The citation aught to provide a page number or page numbers. Pyrotec (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  It's actually a map, so doesn't have any pages (see here for an example of the latest edition).--DavidCane (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, it looks interesting. I've struck this one out. Pyrotec (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• The final comment in the forth paragraph states - In 1907, the station was given its present name.[3] Perhaps this is splitting hairs, but what precisely was that name? The article's title is "Westminster tube station", but it appears in the lead as: Westminster is a London Underground station in the City of Westminster.

  "Westminster" as opposed to "Westminster Bridge". With regard to station names; these are usually displayed at stations in two ways. At entrances the name will be in the format "Westminster station" but everywhere else it will be just "Westminster" which is how the lead is formatted.--DavidCane (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Sub-surface station' / Deep-level station -

•  Done Pyrotec (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC) - I'm confused by the Jubilee Line / Jubilee Line Extension statements about station rebuilds. The final paragraph in the Sub-surface station' subsection states: "The station was completely rebuilt with the construction of the deep-level platforms for the Jubilee line", but it seems that Westminster was not on the Jubilee line (see later). The first paragraph of Deep-level station then explains the change of route of the Jubilee Line Extension. Both the Sub-surface station and the Deep-level station subsections discuss building works associated with the deep level station: there seems to be two lots of rebuildings (plus a platform extension) one for the Jubilee line and one for the Jubilee Line Extension. Is this so?

  No, the work was carried out at the same time. The original MDR sub-surface station and all the various adaptations over the following 120 or so years were completely destroyed by the construction of the Jubilee line below and were rebuilt in the process. I have changed the wording at the end of the sub-surface section to, hopefully, clarify this.--DavidCane (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Further comments -

•  Done Pyrotec (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC) - It seems to me from the age of the station that when it opened, the line(s) and the station used steam trains and predated electrification; and there will have been changes in rolling stock over the years. Traction is mostly the remit of the relevant Line articles, but I'm surprised that there is not a condensed summary in this station article.

  Yes, the MDR was originally steam operated. The change-over to electric trains came on 5 July 1905 (see my other current GAN, Underground Electric Railways Company of London, for some information on this). I will add sentence or two on the change over. --DavidCane (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been to New Scotland Yard (not the police HQ) several times in the 1980s, so may have used the sub-surface station, but I can't recall it. Perhaps I walked from another station.

A minor point: London Underground stations seem to be notable, or otherwise, for their accessibilty in terms of ticket office(s), access to platforms (stairs, lifts and/or both) and platforms. Ticket halls and platforms (blue tiles) are discussed for the subsurface station, but nothing about access to platforms. They are discused in some depth for the new station, so I'm not making this a "Hold".

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. I think that has the potential of becoming a WP:FAC, but a bit more work will be needed to get it up to that standard. Congratulations on producing a fine transport article. Pyrotec (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)