Talk:Baker Street and Waterloo Railway: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:48, 2 November 2022

Baker Street and Waterloo Railway is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Baker Street and Waterloo Railway is part of the Underground Electric Railways Company of London series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 10, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 16, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
January 10, 2010	Featured article candidate	Promoted
November 1, 2012	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 13, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the London Underground's Baker Street and Waterloo Railway* was built so Londoners could get to cricket matches?*
Current status: Featured article

London FA‑class Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Rapid transit / in UK / in London FA‑class Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 48, 2009

	London Transport Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

FA

This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport (assessed as High-importance).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:BS&WR route map.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baker Street and Waterloo Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080125074800/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1949.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1949.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baker Street and Waterloo Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223194851/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1908.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1908.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020

I'd have expected a mention of the modern London Underground earlier in the lead
I'm concerned that the article goes into unnecessary detail in places, which hampers readability. For example, the subsection on the failed 1898 bill is nearly 400 words long in an already-long section and this long before we get to the building of the line. It's followed by another 400 words on a mostly unsuccessful proposal. These should be distilled and summarised in my opinion.
Some repetition, eg the Metropolitan Railway and Paddington station are introduced twice
Precise names and dates of enabling acts feel like excess detail. In fact, there's quite a bit of redundancy and excess detail throughout. Edits like this reduce the wordiness without the loss of any necessary detail or understanding.
A lot of the footnotes could be removed without any loss of understanding of the main subject. For example, detail about the lifts at stations feels far too in-the-weeds for an article about a railway line.
Some duplicate links could use attention.

Overall, this is an excellent article but in places feels like a general history of the Underground system, information which would be better presented in other articles so this one can focus on its subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 23:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
+== [[WP:URFA/2020]] ==
+*I'd have expected a mention of the modern London Underground earlier in the lead
+*I'm concerned that the article goes into unnecessary detail in places, which hampers readability. For example, the subsection on the failed 1898 bill is nearly 400 words long in an already-long section and this long before we get to the building of the line. It's followed by another 400 words on a mostly unsuccessful proposal. These should be distilled and summarised in my opinion.
+*Some repetition, eg the Metropolitan Railway and Paddington station are introduced twice
+*Precise names and dates of enabling acts feel like excess detail. In fact, there's quite a bit of redundancy and excess detail throughout. Edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baker_Street_and_Waterloo_Railway&diff=1119688991&oldid=1119686338 like this] reduce the wordiness without the loss of any necessary detail or understanding.
+*A lot of the footnotes could be removed without any loss of understanding of the main subject. For example, detail about the lifts at stations feels far too in-the-weeds for an article about a railway line.
+*Some duplicate links could use attention.
+Overall, this is an excellent article but in places feels like a general history of the Underground system, information which would be better presented in other articles so this one can focus on its subject. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 22:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)