Talk:Redhill–Tonbridge line/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 22:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this review. The article is very well written and shouldn't need a great deal of changes. Please use {{done}}, {{not done}}, etc to reply to comments. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lede

Would it be possible to add an interactive map (using {{Attached KML}} or {{maplink}})? I would be happy to guide you through that - it's pretty easy.
I don't know how to do this, so I would be grateful for your assistance. My feeling is that the existing static map is very clear, so a zoomable map should be an addition and not a replacement. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely an addition rather than a substitution. The basic process is to drawn the line in a mapping system that can export as KML (I find Google My Maps to be relatively easy). I'll ping you about that after we finish this review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1921 and 1947 ownership changes seem worthy of a sentence in the lede
Done To be clear, 1921 and 1947 are years of the relevant Acts of Parliament and the changes of ownership took effect in 1923 and 1948 respectively. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Route

I would replace the second image in this section with the picture of Godstone that's currently at the end of the article.
Not done The Godstone image is illustrating the point about the relative lack of passenger facilities, which is discussed in the proposals section. The Edenbridge Tunnel photograph shows a relatively unusual railway feature - namely one railway crossing another where a tunnel briefly opens out. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think the Godstone image caption could better connect it to the text (something like Godstone station was proposed for improvements...). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more to the caption to make the relevance clearer. Mertbiol (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ABC Railway Guide listings for Kent and Surrey show a number of level crossings on the line. Is there anything special about the two mentioned in the article? The current wording implies that they are the only two level crossings on the line (and also incorrectly indicates they are between Penshurst and Leigh, rather than Edenbridge and Penshurst).
Done Thank you for spotting this. The Medhurst Row and Brasted Lands level crossings are the only ones mentioned in the Sectional Appendix. I had assumed, in error, that this meant they were the only ones, but the ABC guide (and other sources) prove otherwise. It's possible that in 2009, when the Sectional Appendix was compiled, the Brasted Lands crossing was a private vehicle crossing (as Medhurst Row still is today), but that it has been downgraded since. I have removed the mention of Brasted Lands and have made a slight change to the discussion of Medhurst Row. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do either of the sources indicate what length of Class 377 sets (how many cars) are typically used?
I know from my original research that a roughly even mix of 3-car and 4-car units is used. Unfortunately I can't find a source that says this and the 2024 "Kent–Gatwick Rail Connectivity" study just mentions the 4-car units. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, that's fine then, and same for the other Class 377 question.. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:COLLAPSE, the stations table should not be collapsed by default.
Done Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Include a sentence about current freight operations
Done Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

I recommend adding {{inflation}} for monetary amounts
Done Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several images spill over between subsections, meaning they're a bit displaced from the relevant text. I would recommend moving the 1840 map to the top of its subsection and using {{clear right}} as needed.
Not done The 1840 map is in the correct position, adjacent to the paragraph that discusses the line sharing between the LB&SCR and the SER. Yes there is a slight spill from the final image of Redhill station, but I don't think that matters. In my humble opinion, adding a space with using {{clear right}} would look worse. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure some details about individual stations (such as the 1961 platform reconstruction at Leigh and the 1924 fire at Penshurst) that don't affect the rest of the line need to be included here.
Not done I think this material is useful, because it shows investment in the line up until the mid-1960s, when rationalisation started. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should be contextualized then - right now it comes across as unrelated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't what you mean by "contextualized". Adding further detail not supported by citations would be original research. I don't think that requiring context would be part of the GA criteria. Mertbiol (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking a sentence like Investment in the line continued through the mid 20th-century, including projects like.... But I won't insist on that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For three years from May 1986, Reigate...: I assume you mean Redhill?
Not done No, this is correct as it stands. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: during that three-year period, trains reversed direction at Redhill to run to/from Reigate? (And before that, Reading–Tonbridge trains also reversed direction at Redgate?) That might be worth clarifying in the text. At very least, Reigate railway station should be linked, since it doesn't appear to be linked currently. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. Trains running Reigate-Tonbridge (and therefore also Reading-Tonbridge) required a reversal at Redhill (as do the current Reading-Gatwick services). I have added a clarification in the paragraph about the 1965 introduction of the Reading-Tonbridge services. I have also linked to Reigate railway station. Mertbiol (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger rolling stock

There's only room for one image with the text here. If there's a need for more images, a gallery might be worthwhile.
Not done As above, I can't see that this is a problem. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comment for the various image placement comments: per WP:IMGPLACEMENT, images should be adjacent to the relevant text. Right now, there are too many images, and they push other images away from the relevant text. On the screen I'm currently using (a somewhat obsolete desktop), the two images under "infrastructure" are pushed entirely out of that section by the infobox. The Bletchingly Tunnel image and the two following are pushed completely out of their relevant sections, as are the Tonbridge West Yard and Godstone images. It's not a pleasant reading experience when you have to hunt for the relevant image in a completely different section. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, with respect, the problem is your "somewhat obsolete desktop". There are only twelve images in the main body of the text - that's not many for an article of this length. I have looked at the image placement on both my laptop (Mac) and my desktop (PC) at work with a variety of different browers (Safari, Chrome, Firefox). The images are where I expect them to be - I do not have to "hunt" for them. For me:
The two images in the "infrastructure" subsection display entirely in that section with no bleed through to the "stations and services" subsection. The infobox is not big enough to push them down.

In the "proposals and authorisation" subsection, the 1840 map is entirely in the section with no bleed through. In the "construction and opening" subsection, there is clear white space between the two images. There is the tiniest bleed through of the bottom of the figure caption on the Redhill station image into the line occupied by the next subsection title, but this is not enough to disturb the text.

In the "Passenger rolling stock" subsection, the H class image is adjacent to the paragraph that starts "During the 1930s". The bottom of the Class 119 figure caption does push the Class 508 photo down so that the bottom of its figure caption bleeds into the "freight services" subsection, BUT the top of the Class 508 photo is exactly in line with the "508s" in the main text. Mertbiol (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, It might be a factor of skin as well. I use Monobook, which has a smaller font size and wider text area than the default. Do keep an eye out for how image stacks will behave on screens different from yours, but I don't think action is needed now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link 2-4-0
Done Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: Should you nominate this for DYK, the "Tadpoles" would make for a great hook.
When were Class 377 units introduced on the line?
I know from my original research that the Class 377s were introduced when Southern took over the line in 2008. Unfortunately I can't find a reliable source that says this. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freight services

Any indication how many daily freight trains use the line?
I don't think that this information is available and I suspect that it might be commercially sensitive (i.e. ineligible for public release). Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - one of those unexpected differences between US and UK railroading. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would mention that the Class 92 is generally used for Channel Tunnel services
Done I have added a reference to support this. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

Are those official document titles? If so, they should be in italics.
I think MOS:MINORWORK probably applies here, so I have used double quotation marks. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents and incidents

The 1909 sentence needs to be split in two
Done Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are any details about the 1852 derailment available?
The 1852 derailment took place at very low speed. Noone was killed and noone was injured. I've removed it. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

This section isn't needed. The first map can be moved to the Route or History sections; the second doesn't provide a lot of value.
Done I have removed this section. If a zoomable map is added, then the "Railways of Kent" map (which doesn't show the Redhill-Tonbridge line particularly clearly) is unnecessary. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

The sectional appendix, while first published in 2009, appears to have been regularly updated since.
Done I have updated with a new URL for the version published in September 2024. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 134 (Semgonline) appears to be self-published; I'm not sure if it passes RS.
Done I have removed this reference, as the same material is covered in Grayer (2011). Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response from nominator

Hi @Pi.1415926535: Thank you very much for taking on this review and for your very detailed comments. I think I have responded to everything so far and have edited the article accordingly. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: Looking good so far! Just a few minor clarifications, plus some solution to images being displaced from the text they accompany, are needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: I have made some additional changes and have responded to your points above. Mertbiol (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: Great work, happy to pass now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2024 (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.