Talk:Nuclear Strike (Spooks)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Nuclear Strike (Spooks) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Nuclear Strike (Spooks) is part of the Spooks (series 7) series, a good 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 23, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
May 27, 2011 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nuclear Strike (Spooks)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 talk 04:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:

I will review sometime later today or tomorrow. Ruby2010 talk 04:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


  • The character did not say a word throughout the entirety of the episode, yet has such a strong presence, which the producers felt was unique for a guest star in the series. I think the sentence has some tense issues. Did you mean he had such a strong presence? And make it more clear that it was the producers who felt he had the strong presence.
  • When Sam Miller called Cross about the development, the writer included as a last minute addition to the script, and the sequence was shot the next day. I think there's a word missing.
  • There are two disambiguation links that need to be fixed.
  • I made a few minor corrections myself, and everything else looks great. Just address the concerns above, and it will be good to go. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 16:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. -- Matthew RD 21:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. Pass for GA. Nice work, Ruby2010 talk 22:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

False "abandoned" train claim[edit]

The Filming section claims:

"Five days of filming were spent at the London Underground tunnels. Filming took place on actual tube tunnels, albeit disused ones. As the crew were scouting the disused tunnels, they came across an abandoned tube train. When Sam Miller called Cross about the development, the writer included it as a last minute addition to the script, and the sequence was shot the next day."

The train is not "abandoned," but rather stabled there deliberately for maintenance, training, and filming purposes since the Aldwych branch closed to passenger use in 1994:

3229-4229-4329-3329 - Aldwych for filming and training
[London Underground Rolling Stock, Brian Hardy, Capital Transport, 2002]
"On 27th November 1998, a four-car unit of 1972 Mk I stock (3229-4229-4329-3329) was transfered from the Ruislip depot to the Aldwych branch.... Since that time this unit has almost been the only train on the branch.... However, in June 2002 the preserved unit of 1960 Tube stock made a short appearance in connection with filming. The 1972 unit returned to Ruislip depot for the duration, accompanied by a train of 1973 stock in case of breakdown. The 1960 stock remained on the branch until early August." [The Aldwych Branch, Antony Badsey-Ellis and Mike Horne, Capital Transport, 2009, page 73]
"Since closure, initially a 1959 stock train was used on the branch, subsequently replaced by a four-car unit of 1972 stock, and hence this is the type of train seen in many recently-made films that show the Underground." [ibid, page 103]
"Moving the Cravens [preserved unit] to the Aldwych branch was no simple task and took place overnight 24/25th June [2002]. It involved the movement of 3 trains - a train of '72 TS has been stabled on the Aldwych branch for several years, this was to be accommodated at Ruislip for the duration of the filming. A train of '73 TS was provided to follow the '72 TS back to Ruislip in case of failure. Upon arrival at Holborn the Cravens had to wait for the removal of the '72 Stock. Because the branch is no longer part of the operational railway the junction onto the branch had to be operated manually and secured with clips and scotches - this required a possession between Covent Garden and Russell Square." [1]
"Unit 3229 at Aldwych
One 4-car unit, 3229, has lived on the closed Holborn–Aldwych branch of the Piccadilly Line since December 1998, where it has been available for filming work and for training purposes: apart from a visit or two to Northfields or Ruislip for maintenance, it has been there ever since. It tends to be stabled in the running tunnel between Holborn and Aldwych, with one of the Driving Motor cars within the crossover-cavern (between one tube and the other on the Aldwych branch); this allows Test Train crews to access the under-floor equipment to “pull in” the Motor-Alternator relay manually if the batteries have become flat. The unit is then given what could be termed a “rusty train” working of a couple of round-trips every month just to keep it in some sort of condition.
It went to Ruislip Depot for maintenance on 18 January 2006, and also visited Ealing Common depot (reason unknown); by that time it had been given a red-painted front on the “inner” cab 3329 end, presumably to improve its suitability for masqeurading as a modern train for filming purposes. It returned to the Aldwych branch on 24 July 2006."[2]

See also Transport for London > Media > Filming opportunities > Filming on the Tube > Gallery > Aldwych, which include pictures of the 1972 unit in situ.

The bottom line is that it matters not a jot what the programme-makers mistakenly assumed when - unaware that it was there - they found the train while scouting the location. It is there for very clear and deliberate resons, is used regularly, and so cannot be described as "abandoned." Mistaken beliefs do not trump facts. I am therefore amending text to reflect reality again. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)