Talk:King's Cross Thameslink railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 11:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Happy to take this on. I can't see any reason to quick-fail this whatsoever, so a full review will be forthcoming. I tend to copyedit as I go and raise issues as and when I find them. Specific comments will follow. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Location and layout

• "King's Cross Midland City, as it was then called, was one of the original eighteen stations in the group" - nowhere in the body has the explanation for this name been given yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  I have added a new section called "Naming" so that all the different names are introduced up front.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Early history

• "It was originally known as Broad Ford, then Bradford Bridge." - when is "originally" in this context? Middle ages or thereabouts?

  I don't know, you might have to ask the person who originally wrote that line . I will have a look at rewriting this a bit shortly though.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• This section, including details on platforms 9 and 10 seems to be a copy-paste of London King's Cross railway station. Since this isn't really about the Thameslink station as such, it sounds off-topic here and should be trimmed down. In particular, the copyvios tools shows a 73.2% possibility of a copyright violation with the parent article - this needs to be fixed ASAP.

  Section reduced.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Johnson, Marguerite (2012). Boudicca. A&C Black" needs a page number. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  This part is now gone.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

King's Cross Metropolitan

• "The route through King's Cross Metropolitan remained busy throughout the remainder of the century" - 19th century? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. I've added that.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thameslink programme

• "The Snow Hill tunnel, which had seen no passenger services since World War I, closed completely in the 1970s - have you got the exact date?

  Not the exact date, but I've narrowed it down to 1971.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  According to Joe Brown's London Railway Atlas, Freight services ended on 24 March 1969 and the tracks were dismantled on 3 May 1971. I've added this to the article.--DavidCane (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Closure and relocation

• What is the source "Network Rail (2005a) – pg.20, paragraph 5.4.1" in a fuller context?

  Unfortunately that isn't a source I've seen myself. The line in question was already in the article before I started work on it. It looks like it was added as part of a COPYWITHIN, based on earlier text at the Thameslink Programme article written in 2006 by Edvid. Is there anything in particular you want to clarify about this?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Essentially, I don't know what it is. Is it a report, a manual, a statement of work, a plan, or something else? If it was published by Network Rail in 2005, surely there should be a link online somewhere, even via the Wayback Machine. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see... my bad. It was a short ref to something provided in full in the bibliography of the Thameslink Programme article. I have updated to provide the full context and link to document. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• "These are able to handle 12-car trains and will have sufficient capacity to serve the Thameslink Programme route ..... " - this (and the prose following it) isn't sourced and seems to be grammatically incorrect. The Thameslink route is now well established (I've used it to attend at least one London meetup) so this should all be in the past tense, I would have thought.

  The line in question seems to be redundant to the line at the beginnig of the paragraph. I've also moved the bit about links to SP and KX up, and cited it.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• What makes alwaystouchout.com a reliable source?

  Also one I found already in the article. I've replaced it with [1] which, although a blog post, is accredited to the London Transport Museum so I assume may be reliable.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, it's written by Tim Dunn who is a recognised railway expert who presents on BBC4, so I would consider it to be reliable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary

• I think everything listed here can be resolved in a short timescale, so I'm putting the review on hold now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think everything's been addressed, so I'm passing the review now. Well done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)