Wikipedia:Peer review/Metropolitan Railway/archive1

Metropolitan Railway

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like comments before nominating it for FA status.

Thanks, Edgepedia (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, using the automated tools I notice I need to add alt text to the images. Will do over the next few days. Edgepedia (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done already. Please comment on the text. Edgepedia (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment by DThomsen8 (talk)

• Very good work so far. I made some slight changes, but I make a comment:

• In the lede, ... and King's Cross stations and the City. Londoners, and many others, know that the City means The City of London, the historic core of London and (by metonymy) the British financial services sector, quoting The City disambiguation article. For an encyclopedia, though, a link or some other explanation is needed. I leave it to your good judgment how to do that. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've expanded the article and discribed the city as the historic core and trading and financial centre. . Not too happy with that at the moment, see if I can improve before a short description in the lead. Edgepedia (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments ---Thanks, I'm going to fix these in what may seem to be a random order! Edgepedia (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Lead feels a little short for an article of this length.
• Expanding it would also allow for a larger lead image, right now it's quite difficult to make much out of that map.
• "The railway started to electrify its routes " no, the routes were electrified, the railway didn't do it to itself.

I'll get back to the lede  Done

• Check that all King's Cross have an apostrophe.  Done One found
• I normally expect off peak to be off-peak. Done Two found
• No reason for "the Hammersmith and City Railway Company opened " to be in bold. Done
• "The Metropolitan Railway in 1870" caption, second sentence needs a full stop. Done fixed a couple of captions that were sentences
• Link Swiss Cottage in the prose. Done first occurance linked to station
• "The Metropolitan & St. John’s Wood Railway" again, no need to bold this text.

---I merged Metropolitan & St. John's Wood Railway and this is now a redirect to the Extension line section. I'll read the MOS about this.

WP:REDIRECT#PLA says it may be appropriate. I'll consider this.

• 3.75 vs 6½ - be consistent.  Done with {{frac}} and {{convert}} templates
• "with plans to link it to the Circle line or to the Waterloo & City line, but these never came to fruition." is unreferenced. --- Good call, sure I've seen it, but the text is in the sub-article unreferenced. Looking in books... Done I've done it, but perhaps it needs a better reference.
• Couple of really short paragraphs towards the tail-end of the article. Done tidied up a bit
• "No 368 bogie " should that be "Number 368 bogie"? DonePreferred No. as an abbr of Number Done
• "Electric Locomotives" ->"Electric locomotives" Done changed section title
• 1922-1923, -> 1922–23. Done
• "named after famous London residents" could you give a couple of examples of famous residents of the early 1920s? Done I listed (and linked) the names of the preserved units in the next para.
• "Electric Multiple Units"->"Electric multiple units" Done changed section title
• "7 x 8-coach " and throughout. I believe there's a "multiply" symbol you could use rather than just a plain x. Done
• Ref 5: pp. 10-12. needs en-dash.
• Ref 14: pp. 13,25. needs a space.
• Ref 19: pp. 8-9. needs en-dash.
• Refs 30 to 32: need en-dashes.
• Same for refs 38 to 40.
• Ref 55 needs publisher, author, accessdate, publication date information where appropriate. Done Replaced with a better source
• Ref 58: pp. 206,207. needs a space.
• So do 67 and 69.
• Ref 71: pp. 12-13. needs en-dash.
• So does ref 78.
• And 94 and 101.  Done Hopefully fixed all multiple page references
• Many books lacking comprehensive information e.g. ISBNs. Done fixed
• First external link needs an en-dash.  Done Changed the format

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think that both in the intro and in the Metro-land section the article needs to be clearer that many of the developments were undertaken by the Metropolitan Railway itself, as is stated in the Wikipedia Metroland article: "In 1903 the Metropolitan developed a housing estate at Cecil Park, Pinner, the first of many such enterprises over the next thirty years. Overseen by the Metropolitan's general manager from 1908–30, Robert H Selbie, the railway formed its own Country Estates Company in 1919.".
• In the intro, I think the wording "... connecting Great Western Railway's relatively remote terminus at Paddington with Euston and King's Cross stations and the financial heart in the City" is a bit clumsy towards the end; I think it should say something like: "... connecting the Great Western Railway's relatively remote terminus at Paddington with Euston and King's Cross stations and the City, the financial heart of London". re-writing lead

 Done I've re-written lead.

• In the Metro-land section, only the 1st paragraph is actually about Metro-land. The remaining material is about locomotives, service patterns and new branches, and so should really be moved or given a separate heading.

Winstonsmith99 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Green has a chapter called "Metro-Land" and Horne a chapter called "The Heyday of Metroland" which cover about the same period... (not saying they're right!) Edgepedia (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Metro-land" 1915-33 section covers the period in the Met's history when it promoted the railway and the land with this name. Hopefully I've now clarified what this section is about.

• There are quite a few things that I can see that are silent or missing. Having written a number of the existing London Underground featured articles, I have quite a few of the reference works, so I will make changes as I think are necessary to bring it into a degree of conformity with those. --DavidCane (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, checking if there was anything missing was something I was hoping from this peer review. I'll delay writting the lede. Edgepedia (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that after looking at Baker Street and Waterloo Railway I am currently expanding the the London Passenger Transport Board, 1933 section to add a Legacy section. Edgepedia (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)  Done

• I've replaced the first image as I really wasn't happy with the map, the details were not clear at all. Had been hoping for something like Praed Street junction, found it on commons yesterday. Edgepedia (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that this peer review has now about run its course. I've rewritten the first paragraph and found a better image for the lead, which I hope addresses some of the comments here. I've also expanded some of the later sections. However some of the references could be better, so I'm going to look for these and DavidCane has suggested that he has some additional information, so I going to (hopefully) leave the article for a while before putting forward for FA, although I next may write on an article on Metropolitan Railway electric multiple units which should mean some of the nerdy detail on h.p. etc can come out of this section. Thanks everyone! Edgepedia (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Good work; trying for FA would be a good thing, then on 11 December 2012 we can raise a TFA request for it to be TFA on 10 January 2013 - that will score 4 points for a semicentennial anniversary. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That's my plan Redrose. I'm sure you know that according to unreliable sources some people have been playing with fire at Baker Street in prep for next year. Edgepedia (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's in the current (April 2012) issue of The Railway Magazine (pp. 6-7) --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)