Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Green Park tube station/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2018 [1].

Green Park tube station[edit]

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green Park tube station is one of the most interesting stations on the London Underground system having gone through three stages of development which I think is well covered in the article. DavidCane (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN 54129[edit]

Nice article! Just a few points that jump out, nothing major of course.

Glad you like it. Responses below.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rival schemes[edit]
  • "although it was re-presented in 1903, it was dropped in 1905": How about "although re-presented in 1903, it was dropped two years later"?
  • Perhaps "Due to failures in the application process, this scheme was also rejected", purely on account of the sheer number of schemes which you have listed as being individually rejected by then?
Construction etc[edit]
  • I see you use whilst twice and while once; any particular reason for the choice? I'm not a particularly pro- or anti-ster, but I suppose I'd prefer consistency. Or maybe it makes a change?
    • Drive-by comment (more considered comments from me will follow on the whole article shortly): "whilst" seems just a bit quaint to me, but Fowler only says that it is "less commonly" used than "while". The Guardian style guide says "while not whilst" but doesn't say why. In short, a matter of taste, I think. I don't know that I have a view on whether one should stick to one or other form rather than mix and match. More anon. Tim riley talk 15:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I normally use whilst and amongst rather than while and among, so not sure while is here. When would be better, but, anyway, I've changed the wording to address one of the other comments below.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can "accent band", as a technical term, be linked to anything for clarity?
    • it just means the edges of the panels of tiling being in a different colour to the rest. I have changed it to margins.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reconstruction[edit]
  • Did anything "happen" relating to the station between its opening and the 1930s? (Except the attempts at crowd control!).
    • Nothing exceptional. After the flurry of construction in the 1900s, the UERL was financially exhausted. There wasn't much going on in the central area during this period. Most of the new initiatives on the Underground were extensions: Northern line to Edgware and Morden, Central line to Ealing Broadway, Bakerloo line to Watford Junction, Metropolitan Railway to Watford and Stanmore. There were some new trains (the London Underground Standard Stock was introduced on the Northern line in 1923 and the Piccadilly line in 1929), but nothing important happened at Green Park as far as I can see.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The new ticket hall was accessed from subway entrances in Devonshire House on the north side of Piccadilly on the corner with Stratton Street and a southern entrance on a piece of land taken from the park"—can this be broken up slightly? Preferably, I think into two sentences, but if not, at least some punctuation—perhaps a semi-colon somewhere?
  • "below ground passages"—"below-ground passages".
  • More out of curiosity, again, but why "teahouse or tea shop", rather than just one or the other? They do link, after all, to the same thing, which does rather suggest synonymity :)
    • Amended. That was another user's edit of a link. Possibly they weren't sure which of the options was relevant.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vctoria Line[edit]
  • I notice, again, that you refer to the system itself as the underground rather than the tube; in fact, the only time the latter is used is in the title and the references. Perhaps it's a question of consistency again, but I think that, by the post-war period at least, you can probably start referring to it in the colloquial occasionally.
  • "variety of new routes and extensions of existing lines" > suggest either "the extension of existing lines" or "extensions to existing lines".
  • "A collapse...stabilised to enable work to continue"; can this be rephrased? Perhaps, In 1965 one of the tunnels collapsed during excavation, and it was necessary to chemically stabilise the earth to continue", or something?
    • Reworded. It wasn't so much the tunnel that collapsed as the ground through which it was being bored.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which leads on to the next sentence: remove repetition of the year, and use "the following year"?
    • Done
  • Is it possible to get a picture of Unger's Victoria Line tiling, and perhaps replace the image of 5-7 Dover St, which, frankly, is a little disconnected (although a picture of the original would be great!)
    • The reinstated versions of Unger's tiles can be seen in the first image in the Recent changes section in the recess of the seat. The penultimate image in the London Transport Museum set in External links shows the originals (which have a pale yellow-green background rather than the white background of the replacements - that might be a colour defect in the image or TfL may have decided that a white background went better with the new white wall tiles). There's another image in Commons that shows the tiles face-on which I have added a link to in the image caption.
    • The first of the London Transport Museum images shows the original building.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when the third stage of the line opened" > "with the opening of the third stage of the line"?
    • Done.
  • "The official opening by the Queen" > "The same day, the Queen carried out the official opening at GP".
Jubilee[edit]
  • "The Fleet Line": perhaps something like, "What was then called the Fleet Line", or something, so as to prepare the reader for the later name change—particularly as, with the sub-heading being used, they will be expected that rather than this! Maybe condense the footnote into the text for this?
  • "Baker Street to Charing Cross via Bond Street and Green Park": how about just "Baker Street to Charing Cross", as it's quite a complex sentence otherwise. Although it's worth asking at this point whether we can use any of those old maps at all that show various lines in different stages of completion? I think I've got a couple myself, but are they still ©?
  • The first couple of lines of the second para may want to be reworded? On the one hand, you say tunnelling finished in 1974, but on the other, construction was still going on in 1977? Do you mean of the stations, the fitting out, etc? If so, could this be clarified as it might be slightly confusing to the general reader who knows nothing of the planning of tube tunnels.
    • Yes construction of the stations. The tunnelling is often finished long before the line opens due to the time needed for the track and signalling to be installed and all of the works in the stations, just as we are seeing on Crossrail.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was used for a substation" > "was used as a substation"? Although I'm uncertain myself.
    • The substation occupies space in the shaft, so I think "for" is more accurate. I've clarified its an electrical substation in case a reader thought it was a minor railway station.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deep red with leaf pattern"; can we say what colour the leaves were in, for the contrast? Off the top of my head I can't remember, but from the image you use it might be black. True?
  • "in August 1978 and the Jubilee line opened on 1 May next year".
  • "Fleet line's stages 2 and 3": Suggest clarifying (perhaps earlier on, when discussing the proposed routes, on the assumption that that's what we're talking about here) precisely what these stages were (a footnote might do it). Also maybe refer to as the Jubilee, since that's what it was by now.
    • It was still the Fleet line when the approval was given. I've amended the existing note to give more information on the routings.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition of "passageway".
  • "The new extension opened in stages starting in the east": This needs clarification; I assume you mean Stratford, which should be named and linked. Also, in this para, you should link somewhere to Jubilee Line Extension.
    • Good idea. Stratford mentioned and a link to the JLE is added.--DavidCane (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having said that—that whole last para is entirely about the line itself, not Green Park station specifically; although since GP was the junction between old and new, perhaps it's OK. I certainly don't insist on it either way.
    • I think most of this is necessary context to explain why the tunnels to Charing Cross were abandoned after only 20 years. It does discuss the improvements at Green Park as well.--DavidCane (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recent changes[edit]
  • Re. "the Hans Unger tiling in the seat recesses of the Victoria line platforms was replaced ": I seem to remember that there was a big (probably Evening standard-led) brouha over this at the time. Now that's completely my own theory, but perhaps see if you can find something out about it? It would add a little human interest. In any case, the final sentence re, the Unger restoration, currently needs a reference.
    • I've not been able to find anything regarding a brouhaha about the tiling, nor is there a citable source that specifically mentions their reinstatement. The photographs that we have of the station though show that they were reinstated as part of the late 2000s works:
      • this and this show the platforms with the original wall tiling in April 2007 and June 2008.
      • this shows the June Fraser replacement tiles in April 2007
      • this and this show the platforms in July and September 2008 with the wall tiling removed during the refurbishment and the walls rendered in preparation of new work.
      • this shows the wall tiling replaced, but not the recess tiling in 2009
      • this shows the completed work with the reinstated Unger pattern in 2015 - we know from ref 51 that this work was completed by 2011.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The new ramped entrance from the park and the street level shelter "; I wonder if it's worth amalgamating this with the earlier sentence
    • I've reworded this to mention the ramp on first mention of the new park entrance.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...with access directly from Green Park". "Which consisted of a new ramped entrance", etc. As it stands, you open a parage referring to a specific ramped entrance which hasn't actually been mentioned before, except perhaps by implication.
  • I don't really see a necessity in naming the architects; but then, perhaps I do too much anti-spam work around here  :)
    • It's not vital to name check them. I suppose. They are mentioned in the sources so are not anonymous if someone is interested.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition of "cool"; perhaps "To help regulate the temperature, a system..."? (Annoyingly, our article on Temperature regulation, which would be a nice link, is basically about body heat!)
    • I've change the first "cool" to "moderate temperatures in"--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again...Ove Arup and Partners?! But I'll go by whatever the general feeling is.
Proposal...[edit]
  • Ah-ha! A mention of the Fleet Line stage one—again! All the more reason to discuss these stages earlier?
  • Reference required for "No further work has been done...".
    • It's not possible to prove that nothing further has been done, but the sentence can be removed without changing the preceding.--DavidCane (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bombing[edit]
  • Now, this is purely my opinion, but I wonder whether this really requires its own section? As it's only one sentence, I imagine it could neatly into the prose, chronologically? But again, I'll go with the general view on this.
    • I don't think it fits in as part of the previous sections which all relate to developments to the stations. The bomb does not appear to have damaged the station, so there was no reconstruction required.--DavidCane (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 9 October 1975, terrorists belonging to the..."—suggest, per WP:WORDSTOWATCH, "On 9 October 1975, the Provisional IRA...". Or perhaps, "On 9 October 1975, members of the Provisional IRA's Balcombe Street Gang..." which has its own article, and that lot are probably well-known enough to warrant a link.
IPC[edit]
  • Just curiosity, but is this the only thing it's been used in? I don't want to turn this section into a fancruft fest, but I thought it would be a backdrop in classic B&W films. Shame if not, an, as long as they're sensible additions, this is more human interest I suppose. Still, can't make it up, can we... 11:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    • It does not seem to have had the glamorous life of Aldwych tube station, which has featured repeatedly as itself and, in disguise, as other stations. There may be some random street shots with the station in the passing background, but that does not really count for this sort of section. Certainly, fancruft is to be avoided and by providing a good source for this one instance that should stop the random unsourced crap that appears otherwise.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope this is of some use at least, DavidCane. Best of luck with it!

—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thanks; it was all very helpful.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just checking, SN, and no pressure to declare a position, but have you completed your review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the poke, Ian Rose, this had slipped my mind. My review was more thorough than I intended, actually, and everything has been attended too nicely (including such anomalies as WP:WTW, etc.). Have now indicated my support for this article's promotion. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria[edit]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I reviewed the article for GA and thought then it was of FA quality. Revisiting it, I remain of that opinion. Comprehensive, v. readable, logically laid out, well and widely referenced. – Tim riley talk 09:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim.--DavidCane (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

Prose looks good. Pity it fragments into higher-level sections at the bottom. Two of them are one sentence long. Tony (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Construction and opening

  • "Whilst the various rival schemes were unsuccessful in obtaining parliamentary approval, the B&PCR was similarly unsuccessful in raising the funds needed to construct its line."

—"While" is more modern. What was similar about their lack of success?

  • "As with most of the other GNP&BR stations, the station building, located on the east side of Dover Street, was designed by Leslie Green."
  • "at first floor level"—hyphen, please.
  • "Platform and passageway walls were decorated in glazed cream tiles in Green's standard arrangement with margins, patterning and the station names in mid-blue." Add a comma and remove a "the".
    • "the" removed, but I don't see anywhere that a comma is needed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The station was provided with four Otis electric lifts paired in two 23-foot (7.0 m) diameter shafts and a spiral stair in a smaller shaft. The platforms are 27.4 metres (90 ft) below the level of Piccadilly." was ... are. I suppose it's OK, but the reader does have to make a slight shift. Do we need commas after "lifts" and "shafts"?
    • "Was" because the provision of the lifts is in the past (and they have been removed) and "are" because the platforms were and still are that far below the surface. I don't think commans are needed, it's not a parenthetical statement.--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank Tony. --DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was the standard arrangement one with margins as a party? It's a little unclear whatever the fuzzy meaning. My editor would make me put two more commas in, but the serial comma is your choice: ""Platform and passageway walls were decorated in glazed cream tiles in Green's standard arrangement, with margins, patterning, and the station names in mid-blue." Tony (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ritchie333[edit]

  • Regarding Tony's comment above, the IRA bomb could be more than a sentence (compare and contrast with Blackwall Tunnel#Provisional IRA bombing, for example), and most station articles have an "accidents / incidents" section (paging Mjroots who researches a lot of this stuff). With this information, the single line section could easily be expanded out to a paragraph or two.
  • Green Park tube was the meeting point for the People's Vote March this summer, attended by 100,000 people. Notwithstanding WP:NOTNEWS, this would be worth at least a sentence in order to meet criteria 1b.

More later.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and has got its own article @1975 Piccadilly bombing. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A search of the Railways Archive website doesn't reveal any accidents. RAIB website also draws a blank. A {{main}} would be useful in the section on the bombing. Mjroots (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to this Times citation, on 24 October 1936 it was reported that a man was fined £2 with £1 1s costs for allowing his dog to walk on one of Green Park's escalators. Shame this isn't DYK, isn't it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the piece about the poor dog that got his leg mangled in the escalator, but didn't think it key to put it in. There were also a couple of people reported (separately) to have fallen under trains, but that's, unfortunately, not particularly uncommon. The only other thing that I found but didn't put in was a fire in one of the tunnel construction sites which meant that workman needed to evacuate the workings temporarily.
I've added a {{main}} tag.--DavidCane (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ritchie, been a couple of weeks since you began reviewing, did you still want to add something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

No spotchecks done. Regarding Capital Transport I take that the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baker Street and Waterloo Railway/archive1 precedent applies as are relative comments also on User talk:Iridescent and archive history i.e that it's a good publisher for FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My comments are below:--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Running through the points one by one (My Personal Opinion, not gospel):
  • [2] is a deep-link to Kent Libraries, will only function for someone who's a member of Kent Libraries, and shouldn't be linked—The Times has its own citation template for a reason. (The article in question—in full—reads An additional escalator is to be installed at Green Park tube station, Piccadilly Line, to deal with the heavy increase in peak-hour traffic. Work is starting immediately and it is hoped that the new escalator will be in use by the end of Auguse. Passengers at Green Park total nearly 10 million a year, an increase of almost 50 per cent, over pre-war, attributed largely to Mayfair business development..)
    • Fixed. Didn't realise that the url provided as the citation at the bottom of the article was tied to my specific library log-in. You would think that such a url would be neutral, so that any reader with access could get to it.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IanVisits isn't something I'd normally consider a RS, but since in this case it's only the republished TfL maps he's hosting I wouldn't consider it an issue (I assume nobody is actually going to challenge where the platforms at Green Park are located since anyone visiting can see the things for themselves, so "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" doesn't come in to play and the sourcing rules are laxer than usual.
    • As Iridescent notes, it's a blog, so not used for anything other than the link to the page with the station layout plan. The source provided at the bottom of the Ian Visits page links to a Freedom of Information Request (here), confirming the map's origin and authenticity.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Acanthus link is reliable provided it's only being used (as it is) to state what Acanthus was commissioned to do, and isn't used to say "they did a great job" etc.
    • As Iridescent notes, the Acanthus source is used as a reference for the description of the works only.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally wouldn't include Peter Berthoud, but it's not something worth opposing over.
    • Included just to provide a link to some more pictures of the fountain. But it isn't necessary to retain it for any other purpose.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO I wouldn't trust the Londonist reference; this is a crappy free advertising sheet handed out at London stations, citing a blog, which in turn is citing a purported page on the DLR (not the TfL as claimed) website that doesn't appear to exist.
    • see below. I'm happy to link direct to the archived DLR pdf, but this does not have any context.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick Cooper's blog is questionable at best as a source, but what's being sourced to it is so inconsequential I wouldn't worry about it.
    • The whole section is included as it's the sort of trivia that otherwise gets dumped in by random passersby. The Cooper ref does have the benefit of images (top right shows the Dover Street name in the tiling of the platform set).--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • developments.dlr.co.uk looks dodgy to me; it doesn't exist even in Google's cache, and the actual website of the DLR is tfl.gov.uk/modes/dlr
    • The dlr.co.uk domain ultimately referenced belonged to Docklands Light Railway Limited before it was merged into the TfL website. Oddly, the last time that the internet archive has a direct link to http://www/dlr.co.uk without it going to a redirect to the TfL website is on 26 July 2002 (here). After that, the various archived crawls follow redirects to the TfL site. TfL kept dlr.co.uk going as a landing page for its redirect until 2016 it seems, though the developments.dlr.co.uk was alive in 2011. Here's a link to developments.dlr.co.uk from 3 May 2011 which looks much like the standard TfL website did at the time. At the bottom right there is a link to a section titled "Where We Go Next" which appears to be the section in which the PDF map would have been linked (the archived url of the PDF includes the url of that section), though the internet archive has not crawled that section.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would it be possible to replace the reference with one whose identity is clearer? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have removed the Londonist ref and rephrased the sentence to make reference to the proposal having been published by DLR in 2011. I have changed the internet archive link to use the earliest version from May 2011 to reflect this publication date.--DavidCane (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christian Wolmar is a reliable source on uncontroversial history; he's a paid-up Labour Party activist (and former Labour candidate for Mayor of London) so biased when it comes to privatisation and management, but that's not an issue here.
    • I've used his book quite a lot on various of my other FAs, but only in the historical context. He was actually only a candidate to be the Labour candidate for mayor - he came quite low in the internal selection vote, but I wouldn't be using him for anything policy related.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within their specialist niche, Capital Transport is the most reliable source around, to the extent that the London Transport Museum has largely given up publishing and stocks their books instead. For something like the history of a tube station, you can assume that if every other source disagrees with them, it's the CT book that's the RS and every other source that's wrong. ‑ Iridescent 17:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Horne Jubilee line books says on its flyleaf "published in association with the Jubilee line, London Underground Ltd" and the Victoria line book says "published in association with the London Transport Museum". The others in the series have variations on these words, so it's safe to assume that they were approved.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, after a note on WT:FAC it looks like this article has some unsourced sentences and paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other than your item in the Source Review section, I can't see anything on WT:FAC that mentions this FAC or the article.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was Nikkimaria's "the tube station article there appear to be some unsourced statements (one is a summary of later paragraphs but two more don't seem to be". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A minor style question, but the Acanthus reference should probably be formatted in the same way as the others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we are all set now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidCane: Where are we with addressing these items? --Laser brain (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging and thanks Iridescent for your assistive comments above. I'd missed this in my watchlist.--DavidCane (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, anyone have an idea of why the summary shown on the main page shows that this has no supports so far, when it has two (SN 54129 and Tim Riley). I assume that bot is looking for some specific wording/formatting combination, but not finding it.--DavidCane (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the lack of a bolded "support" in the comment as that is the normal way to format support !votes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this summary of supports? I cannot find it. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of the collapsed single-line entry for this nomination on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Supports are at the end after number of participants. Currently the bot has identified 0 supports whereas there are actually two.--DavidCane (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does not show up on my computer. Is there a script I have to enable? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: It's this one. ——SerialNumber54129 10:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Serial Number 54129. That's a great help. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 I see you have put your support in a heading. I think you might need to add it in bold for it to count. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, Dudley Miles, but I think it can be either. Look, here's one I made earlier  :) —WP:Featured article candidates/John/Eleanor Rykener/archive2—there's a few supports, but they are a mixture of being in both body and headings; and the ones in the body are bolded in the wikimarkup, but the ones in the headings are only bolded only by the section header and no actual mark up. So it's a little confusing to say the least. Feel free to look in there if the inclination takes you!  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SN, I'd forgotten that it was a script producing that collapsed view.--DavidCane (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "While the various rival schemes were unsuccessful in obtaining parliamentary approval,[15] the B&PCR was also unsuccessful in raising the funds needed to construct its line." I think you should delete "also" - you are contrasting, not adding.
  • You say that B&PCR was taken over by Yerkes's company and then that it merged with the Great Northern and Strand. This is unclear. Did Yerkes also own GNS?
    • Yes. Yerkes business arrangements were complicated, often deliberately so, and had sometimes involved dodgy practices. I've added a rather large note to explain the chain of transactions that ended with the B&PCR merging with the GN&SR.--DavidCane (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it correct that nothing of the station designed by Leslie Green remains? This should be clarified.
    • Done in note c. The Piccadilly line platforms themselves remain, but nothing of their original decoration. The last remnants of Green's tiling scheme were removed in the most recent re-tiling. Due to the introduction of the escalators, the previous below ground passageways that connected the Piccadilly line platforms to the lifts became redundant, but they almost certainly remain but inaccessible to the public. The 3D plan of the station linked from ref 23 does not show them, but the passages to the lifts started from the top of the pair of stairs that are roughly in the centre of the platforms and crossed over the eastbound platform and ran north-west under Dover Street. There is a copy of one of the original plans in the J E Connor book. These stairs themselves would have been redundant until brought back into use for the the interchange passages to the other lines. Above ground, the station building has gone except for the minor remnants discussed below.--DavidCane (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although painted-over, remnants of Green's tiling from the left and right sides of the building's facade remain attached to retained sections of the flank walls each side of the current building (see photograph)." Is this the photo of the main entrance at the start of the article?
    • No, that is the 1930s entrance built into Devonshire House. The original building was replaced by the one in this photo, which is the one about half way down the article. The "see photograph" linked to this. I have changed the wording slightly to make it clearer which one.--DavidCane (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first rate article. These points are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Green_Park_tube_station/archive1&oldid=867632872"