Talk:Chesham branch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DavidCane (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The bracketed note about the Harpenden-Boxmoor line might be better in the notes section.
I can guess, but what did the Lowndeses intend to do with the granite blocks?
From where was it inconvenient to reach the London termini; they weren't that far out of the built up area - Bishopsgate and Fenchurch Street were both constructed in areas that had already been built-up and both King's Cross and St Pancras needed slum clearances to be built.
"on absorption by London Transport in 1933 its roundel signs read simply "Chalfont"." Do you mean it read Chalfont when absorbed or after absorption? Didn't the MR use diamond-shaped signs, not roundels?
There are a few places where dates could be added. For example, when were the Sunday services abolished and reinstated?
The bracketed note is in the body text, rather than the footnotes, because without an explanation the tangle of lines around Hemel Hempstead looks confusing on the maps. It was originally a footnote in the drafts, but I thought it was too confusing if it wasn't explained then and there, so moved it up.
"The Metropolitan was built to because travel time between the City and the main line termini, particularly Paddington, which had been built on the north side of the New Road because the MBW and the City Corporation wouldn't allow railways in the City" is possibly the single most citable fact in the history of London Transport (I think it's even printed on the wall at Baker Street). Bishopsgate station was outside the City, and Liverpool Street was built when the old Bethlem Hospital site became free; Minories (and later Fenchurch Street) were allowed because they were necessary for coal traffic from the docks. Pearson was the solicitor for the Corporation of London; he was only concerned about access to and congestion in the City, not the broader urban sprawl. I've tried to keep the early history of the Met to the absolute minimum necessary for someone not familiar with it to understand what it was; most readers of this will almost certainly be familiar with it already.
When LT replaced the diamond Met signs with LT roundels, the new roundels just said "Chalfont". C&L didn't appear on the original Beck map at all; when it first appeared on the map in 1937 it was "Chalfont & Latimer", so they don't appear ever to have formally changed the name. Pick and Ashfield were quite fond of rationalising names when they thought they could get away with it.
I don't have exact dates for the dropping and revival of the Sunday services. Getting reliable sources for them would mean wading through reams of Bucks Free Press back issues, so I'm not really inclined to go looking. – iridescent 01:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Reference 120 gives the page as 1157 - I have assumed that this should be 117.
Might be better to describe Verney as an intermittent or long-time MP rather than former MP as his article indicates that he was subsequently an MP for many more years, even if he was out of parliament in 1853.
At that time he was a former MP, although his political career was later resurrected. I don't really want to go into too much detail on him, as he's very tangential to the Chesham aspect of the Met; this particular section of the route was purely a creation of Watkin with Verney, Rothschild and the Duke of Buckingham being dragged along for the ride. – iridescent 01:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
What altitude/contour have you selected as the cut-off level for the hills in the Chiltern maps?
The one which was in the map I copied, which doesn't actually say . The exact contours aren't too important; the point is just to show where the passes through the hills were. – iridescent 01:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
An easy pass. Expect to see this at FAC soon. 79,000 bytes for a 3.89 mile route; God help us when you get to the mainline!