Jump to content

Talk:Montpelier railway station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMontpelier railway station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 14, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
July 8, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Montpelier railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay myself, been on holiday a while. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

Sorry for the unplanned delay, I had intended to start this review on Saturday 1st September but I've lost six days.

I'm going to lead the Lead until last and just work my way through the article from Description. Pyrotec (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Description & Services -
  • These two section are mostly descriptive. Having checked them, they appear to be OK.
  • History -

Note: This has been a particularly difficult section to review, as much of it appears to be common to Montpelier railway station and the Severn Beach Line, and I'm not too convinced that it accurately names what is being described. I suspect that it mixes some historical names with some modern names and ignores some of the "untidy bits". Having now read quite a few wikipedia articles connected with this "wider topic" and a few books, the picture is becoming somewhat clearer and also more confusing. First there was the isolated Bristol Port Railway and Pier, which ran from Hotwells to Avonmouth. It needed a link to Bristol, the Clifton Extension Railway but got into financial difficulties and the latter seems to have taken over the BPR&P in the 1890s. (These two railways are introduced in reverse order, but I can see the logic behind that decision.) The BPR&P and possibly the CER terminated at Avonmouth (but possibly not at the same place), but this is not made clear in the article. It them seems that in the 1920s the GWR made one or two links from the north, called the Severn Beech loop line, but this is not mentioned in these two article with common text. Finally, part of the BPR&P, the CER and part(s) of the Severn Beech loop line is nowadays known as the Severn Beech line, but this is not explained either.

  • Correct, and yes, there is a lot of duplication given that I wrote all those articles. I haven't finished the SBL one, just had other stuff to do for a while but considered it suitable to put in as it was better than what was present before. I have seen no article refer to a "severn beach loop line", only the SBL. I accept that yes, there is a bit of tidying done, but that is sensible for an encyclopaedia. It makes sense to use modern terminology, but place that in a historical context. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, looking at David & Charles', A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain, Volume 13 (1981) the GWR & Midland joint line ran from around Ashley Heath (Ashley Hill junction) to Sea Mills (back from there to Hotwells) and then to just beyond Avonmouth Dock. There was a Midland link from Kingswood junction and a GWR link from Narroways Hill Junction, both running to Ashley Hill junction; and at the other end there were two GWR links to Avonmouth: one from Filton via Henbury and one from Pathway going over the top of the Severn tunnel near Pilning. These seem to link to the CER at what is now called St Andrew's junction, but there were other points nearby. The opening dates of those lines can be found in Regional History, volume 13, one is called the Avonmouth-Pilning line and the other one used part of the Bristol and South Wales Union (or ran parallel to it), so the "Severn Beech loop line" might not be the proper name. Also, what is now known as the "SBL" were parts of separate lines (which had names) and opened (and sometimes closed) at different dates and the SBL service could not have operated until all the necessary bits had been opened. Pyrotec (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joint railway era -
  • I believe (and I have two reliable references to support it) that the statement The Clifton Extension Railway was opened from Narroways Hill Junction to Clifton Down .... is incorrect. The line did not appear to begin at Narroways Hill Junction. The Clifton Extention Railway seems to have started at Ashley Hill junction (with Montpelier as the first railway station); and eastwards from there, firstly the GWR link line ran to a junction near Stapleton Hill station and secondly the Midland Railway link ran over the top of the GWR line to Kingswood junction (see File:Bristol RJD 9.jpg). Midland services from St Philip's (or Temple Meads) could (with running powers) traverse the GWR's Stapleton Hill junction - Ashley Hill link line. Now, it might be that the junction at Stapleton Hill was called "Narroways Hill Junction", or the junction was moved: I have no information either way (looking at plans, I suspect the latter). However, the article states The initial service provided at Montpelier by the Midland Railway was between Clifton Down, Fishponds and Mangotsfield ...., so these would have gone over the top of the GWR line to Kingswood junction and not through the Stapleton Hill station junction.
    From what I have found online and in books, the CER is considered to include the links from the main lines. Verifiability, not truth. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC) - I'll restate my comment, the claim is currently unverifiable as a whole book consisting of 112 page is used a block reference for 15 citations. Page numbers should be provided to allow the claim that you are making to be verified. The burden of proof is on the editor making the claim. Oakley (2006) does provide verification that the junction at the far end the GWR link line was Narroways Hill Junction but not that the joint line ended at Narroways Hill Junction - its on page 9. Ownership rights are also clear from the figure I've added above which was published in 1914 (and I suspect the original version is held in one of the UK's archives) and in other sources such as: David & Charles', A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain, Volume 13 (1981) and Casseley's, Britian's Joint Lines (1968). Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I would suggest that the Oakley (2006) reference be split into two references: much of the material on the line appears in pages 8-11 and that on the station in pages 83-85. That would reduce the work needed. Pyrotec (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some of these, and more:
  • Maggs, Colin G. (1981). Rail Centres: Bristol. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0-7110-1153-2. DX/1081. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Pre-Grouping Railway Junction Diagrams 1914. London: Ian Allan. ISBN 0-7110-1256-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Casserley, H.C. (1968). Britain's Joint Lines. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0-7110-0024-7. 469 CEX 468. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • MacDermot, E.T. (1931). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. II: 1863-1921. Paddington: Great Western Railway. OCLC 55853736. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
from these it's clear that the joint line began where the GWR and Midland connected at Ashley Hill Junction. Opening dates and mileages are given by MacDermot. Under the heading "Great Western Railway" he shows that "Bristol, Narroways Hill Junction-Ashley Hill Junction with Clifton Extension Line" (36 chains) was opened on 1 October 1874 (MacDermot 1931, p. 600) and under the heading "Clifton Extension Railway (Joint with Midland, 1874)" he shows "Bristol, Ashley Hill Junction-Clifton Down" (1 mile 37 chains) was also opened on 1 October 1874 (MacDermot 1931, p. 630). From the differing headings and widely separated page numbers, yet the same opening date, it's clear to me that ownership changed at Ashley Hill Junction. This is confirmed by Casserley (1968, p. 125) and the map in Maggs (1981, p. 8). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that contribution Redrose64. I have the first and last books on the list. I must get the two volumes of MacDermot, or more likely the 1973 fascimly reprint. Pyrotec (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use the information on pages 8-11 at any point. I did not use any of your references when writing the article, so including them would be simply bullshitting. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...stopping for tonight. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having checked some more sources, it seems that the junction near Stapleton Hill station was called Narroways Hill Junction. So that removes some of the "problems", but not all, mentioned immediately above. Pyrotec (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is WP:Overlinking, for example Narroways Hill Junction is wikilinked twice in the first paragraph.
    Fixed that instance. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC) - The final paragraph talks about the extension of some trains to beyond Avonmouth to Severn Beach. Well yes, but that was facilitated (I believe) by the GWR building the Severn Beech loop line in the 1920's. That also accounts for the Some trains made circular trips to and from Temple Meads via Clifton Down and Henbury or Pilning, loop services, but again the articles merely states that they happened without stating how they were made possible, from that time.[reply]
    Yes, I agree, but I haven't found any references to when they started. I think the "via... Henbury or Pilning" is a suitable description of how they were made possible. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Repeat of above comment) ... there were two GWR links to Avonmouth: one from Filton via Henbury and one from Pathway going over the top of the Severn tunnel near Pilning. These seem to link to the CER at what is now called St Andrew's junction, but there were other points nearby. The opening dates of those lines can be found in Regional History, volume 13, one is called the Avonmouth-Pilning line and the other one used part of the Bristol and South Wales Union (or ran parallel to it). Pyrotec (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Repeat of above comment) I have not found any reference saying when the services started, so I cannot add that information. "via Pilning or Henbury" is a perfectly acceptable way of saying how the services ran. I'm very glad you have those books, but I don't, so fucking fix it yourself. I will not add information to the article that I cannot verify myself. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • British Rail and privatisation -

...stopping for tonight. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK.
  • Future -
Looks OK.

...stopping for tonight. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC) - The lead is intended to both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the point points. As currently written, it is non-compliant with WP:Lead, in respect of relative emphasis and the inclusion of information that does not appear in the body of the article. More than half the current article is about the history of the line and more that one quarter of the article is concerned with pre-nationisation history, but the majority of the lead is concerned with post-1990s details. The comment Its three letter station code is MTP appears in the Lead, but it is not in the article (the infobox is not considered part of the article).[reply]
    I have added an extra brief comment but frankly I believe that the summary as was was fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • History -
  • A comment: ideally the history section should have {{main}} links to articles such as the Seven Beach Line and the Clifton Extension Railway, and the article be limited to summarising the relative points of those articles in respect of Montpelier railway station. I'm not going to make this a recommendation, as Montpelier railway station seems to have more detailed information about the lines/railways than the "main" articles themselves.

At this point, I'm putting the review On Hold. The lead needs attention as does the history section, however, not much work is need to bring the article up to required standard. Pyrotec (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will look into it later today. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the station code from the lead, though I don't see how the infobox is not part of the article. I have added a link to the SBL's history section, and removed a bit, but most of the history section is service history which, to me, seems relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is there to provide a summary of the information given in the article (well some of it such as "open" and "close" dates, owner, etc). However, it also by convention includes usage statistics - usage statistics are not in the article, but I'm not asking from them to be in the article (as long as they are verifiable I'm not intending to pursue this). If something (I'm not talking about usage statistics here) is not considered sufficiently important to put it in the article, why put it in the lead and the infobox, particularly as putting stuff in the leads that does not appear in the article is non-compliant with WP:Lead? Note: the presence of an Infobox is a WP:Trains convention (in this case), it's not mandatory for a GA (nor a FA, beleive).
I don't understand the comment about the history section, you state that it is relevant (and I'm not disagreeing), so as it is relevant why is it not in the lead (in summary form)?

I've marked what I consider non-compliances with WP:WIAGA, most if not all of them have been outstanding since 14th September 2012. Pyrotec (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In {{Infobox GB station}}, the parameter |code=MTP isn't just used to produce the "Station code" row - it's also used to generate the links behind "Live arrivals/departures and station information from National Rail Enquiries". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification, Redrose64. On that basis I'm happy for it to remain in the infobox, but I still don't see why it was put in the Lead, it does not seem to be particularly noteworthy - its been removed from there so I'm happy in that respect. Pyrotec (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Montpelier railway station/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 16:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though Mattbuck has put some hard work into preparing this article during May, so I will be happy to review it for GA. My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response. Rcsprinter123 (shout) @ 16:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent news! -mattbuck (Talk) 19:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comments

[edit]

This looks like it could very well pass. There are a number of sections, all well-wikilinked and illustrated and relevant to the subject, and following the structure which is standard for UK station articles. For references, there seems to be an adequate number at first glance, backed up with some further reading, so the content is largely verifiable. However, Checklinks reports rather a number of dead external links, which will all require fixing before the nomination can be approved.

Section analysis

[edit]

After the review has been conducted, editors addressing the article may mark individual points below off by placing {{done}} after the item.

Infobox
Description
  • Could provide a little more detail on where Ashley is within Bristol, like "central" or "eastern"
     Done -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known why a platform was abandoned in 1970? Could this be mentioned?
    It's mentioned in the history section, that was when they reduced the line to single track. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A rise of almost 100%" - this means that in 2002/03, pretty much nobody used the station? Would some more precise figures be available for insertion here?
    "A rise of almost 100%" is worked on a baseline of 100%. Precise figures are indeed available, Current figures are in the infobox. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Services
Joint railway era
  • Citation number 8 is in twice at the end of the second paragraph ([8][8])
     Done - How curious. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption of the image uses an improper sentence; a noun has to be doing the verb. "Looking east along the platform." may be better connected to the next sentence via a semicolon or somesuch, otherwise remove "looking"
    It's perfectly acceptable to have such a sentence, and "East along the platform" would make no sense whatsoever. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any clue why the committee "refused to build a new booking office" and how they "improve the waiting rooms"?
    It's not mentioned in the reference. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
British Rail and Privatisation
  • No-one says aegis. I had to look it up to check the meaning. Could a more often-used, more understandable term be used instead, such as umbrella, charge, keeping, responsibility?
    I say aegis (in about eight other GAs!) Still,  Done -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No other issues

References

[edit]
The number of each reference I give is correct as of revision 670220214; if any have been added since then it will have moved numbers.

If there is no comment on a reference assume I have reviewed it and found no problems.

  • Is an A-Z map, Ref 1, the best source to use to prove that "the surrounding area is mostly residential, with shops on the nearby A38 Cheltenham Road"? It's also a hard book to look at, unless you buy one.
    I understand the issue, but honestly I don't know what else to use. There's no simcity view with residential in green and commercial in blue. As for it being hard to obtain, that is not a particular issue I think, given that the other references are to magazines or books which you'd have to buy. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2 does not support the statement that "Help points, giving next train information, were installed in 2010" nor that "The help points were stolen in early 2010, but have since been replaced."
    First bit  Done, the second bit gets the "stolen" from ref 35/36, that they were replaced is implied by the fact they are there now (ref 2). -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find "10 miles 55 chains" in either Ref 3 or Ref 4
    You need to do some arithmetic for it, working around the junction between AMB and CNX. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 5, 16, 23, 43 and 48 do not seem to support any claim
    5 is for mileages; 16 supports the classes; 23 states it was replaced; 43-45 are general references of the deal; ditto 47-49. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 does not explicitly state that the station building now is a fireplace showroom. Needs a better one if possible.
    The address says "old station", that seems pretty explicit. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 10 and 11 are dead
     Done The bastards changed the url. Fixed on all articles. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 13 (page 29) seems to mention W6A as the freight gauge (not "loading gauge") whereas the article says W6.
    I got W6 from figure 8 (page 5 or 7). -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best thing I can find on Ref 13 to back up "less than 3 million train tonnes" is a map on pg 3 on which the line is shown in the colour of "up to 5 million tonnes". So where has "3 million" come from?
     Done I think that must be a typo. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the sourcing for "In the 2013/14 financial" down to "rise in usage of the Severn Beach Line". I can see that Ref 15 gives the 120,000 figure for year 13/14, but I can't see anything in Ref 14 to compare it that to. If I add the entrances and exits in that source, I get 62,005, which I guess is the basis for "increase of almost 100%"? However, neither of these sources back up "1592nd busiest station in the country and the fifth busiest within the Bristol unitary authority area".
    You need to sort it by total entrances and exits to get rank, then filter for bristol unitary authority. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21 doesn't really mention
    Could you please expand on this comment? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I must've started writing something and left it. Ignore this point. Rcsprinter123 (sermonise) @ 10:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 31, 32, 34, 36 are dead
     Done - Another lot who changed their urls... -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can put a tick after or strike through any items which have been addressed that would be useful. That is all. I am placing the review  On hold until the issues listed above are fixed, and then we can look at the GA criteria. Rcsprinter123 (face) @ 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Looks like this passes all the criteria. Nomination passed! Rcsprinter123 (discourse) @ 16:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rcsprinter123, though I confess I got a bit worried when legobot said this had failed! Stupid bot... -mattbuck (Talk) 17:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's because I updated the article history template on the article's talkpage rather than add a GA template, must be a glitch in the bot. Congrats. Rcsprinter123 (spout) @ 20:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Montpelier railway station. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Montpelier railway station. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Montpelier_railway_station&oldid=1218567097"