Talk:North Downs Line/GA1

GA Review

Passed. simongraham (talk) 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 12:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it could be a useful article and, on a cursory glance, already seems close to being a Good Article. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks simongraham I honestly wasn't expecting this to be taken up so quickly. I look forward to working with you. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: It is a pleasure. This is my first article to review on this topic so I am looking forward to reading what you have to say. simongraham (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall, the standard of the article is high.
It is of reasonable length, with 5,036 words of readable prose.
The lead is appropriately long at 321 words. It is split into three paragraphs, which is reasonable.
Authorship is 90.6% from the nominator with contributions from 83 other editors.
It is currently assessed as a C class article.
Although not a GA criteria, I suggest adding ALT descriptions to the images for accessibility.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- The writing is clear and appropriate.
- I have made a small number of copyedits. Please revert if you disagree with any.
- I believe northeast and southwest have no hyphen.
- "29 miles (47 km) remains unelectrified" should read either "29 miles (47 km) remain unelectrified" or "29 miles (47 km) of track remains unelectrified"
- I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- A reference section is included, with sources listed.
all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- Citations are mainly books from reputable publishers, including some of the Middleton Press series on the railway and its neighbours.
- Primary sources, including the Beeching Report, are included, and are used appropriately.
- Some contemporary news reports are included, also from reputable newspapers like The Times.
it contains no original research;
- All relevant statements have inline citations.
- Spot checks confirm Dyer, 2019, the "Kent / Sussex / Wessex Routes Sectional Appendix", Oppitz 1988 and Quick 2023.
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Earwig gives a 16% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is unlikely. The highest hit is an article on the Surrey County Council website, where the majority of overlap is the name of the line. The second hit is the "North Downs Line: Traction Decarbonisation Strategy", which is referenced in the article. Again, the common phrases are not problematic.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- The article is extensive, covering the history of the line, the current situation and the future. The inclusion of an incident list is particularly commendable.
- There do not seem to be any mentions on how many people historically used the line except inexact terms like "disappointing passenger numbers" and "Passenger numbers from Dorking fell". Are there any figures available?
- Similarly, given that "56% of passengers on the route connect to services on other railway lines", it would be good to know if this is typical.
- It would also be helpful to have some indication of the size of the freight operations. Are there any figures or data to show how it changed over time? Was the use typical for the network?
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- The article goes into a lot of detail but is generally compliant.
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- The article seems generally balanced.
- There is no mention of any local views on the construction. Are there any available in the literature?
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- There is no evidence of edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- Reading station 1865.jpg and Accident at Gomshall railway station on 20 February 1904.jpg need a US PD tags
- The other images have appropriate CC or PD tags.
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- The article is illustrated with extensive images that help the reader gain context.
- The images are appropriate and include photographs and maps. Thank you for including an image of your own.

@Mertbiol: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Thank you very much for your comments, here are my responses:

1. The Oxford English Dictionary prefers "north-east" or "north east" instead of "northeast" in British English.

That seems a very reasonable argument.

1. I have changed "remains unelectrified" to "remain unelectrified" and have also improved how the conversion template displays.

Thank you.

2. Figures are available for the past two decades or so for individual stations, but I am not aware of any ridership figures for the line as a whole. The station data is not broken down by route, so it is impossible to know what proportion of passengers from, say, Guildford are travelling on the North Downs Line or on the routes to London and Portsmouth.

A pity.

2. The 2015 "Surrey Rail Strategy" does not compare the "56% of passengers on the route connect to services on other railway lines" figure to other routes and I am not aware of any comparable statistics for other lines.

Fair enough.

2: I have added a sentence saying that there were no regular freight workings on the line in 2013. Finding information about freight services is particularly difficult (in the pre- and post-nationalisation eras much of this information is/was commercially sensitive and therefore is/was not released to the public).

That is a shame as this would be helpful information.

4: I have not come across any explicit objections to the construction of the line. I have briefly mentioned that the line makes a loop to pass to the south of Albury Park. Presumably the deviation from the straight route was to mollify the landowner, but I have not found a source that says this.

Interesting, but good to keep clear of OR.

6. I have added US PD tags for "Reading station 1865.jpg" and "Accident at Gomshall railway station on 20 February 1904.jpg" on Commons.

Good work.

I think I have addressed all of your comments and queries. Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: You have indeed. That looks excellent. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Thanks very much for your diligent review! Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.