Talk:City Thameslink railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pkbwcgs (talk · contribs) 20:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I will pick up the review of this railway station. This is my first time doing a Good Article review. My initial review is that it looks good and interesting but the sourcing could improve in the lead section. I will do a detailed review sometime this week or next week. In the mean time, I have prepared the table for the detailed review. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Ritchie333, thanks for your help on this article.

In the "name and location" section, there is a sentence saying "Although City Thameslink is a through-station, for ticketing purposes it is classed as a London terminus for Thameslink services to and from the south." I am aware that City Thameslink is currently not classified as a London terminus, it doesn't say it is a London terminus on the National Rail website and the reference linking that has been dead since 2010 (see this). I think that sentence can be removed as it is misleading. Also, City Thameslink is not a through station apart from trains passing through the station on Sundays as it is closed on that day but that doesn't make it a through station. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary for the sourcing to improve in the lead section - MOS:LEADCITE says Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. together with a few other things, and concludes with The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

This source, used in the featured list London station group says "... the following stations, whilst not technically a London terminus are considered to be 'London Terminals' for ticketing purposes to/from south of London ... City Thameslink - Serves stations north of London to Bedford, Cambridge and Peterborough and south of London to Brighton, Gatwick Airport, Horsham and Rainham" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Okay. Another improvement I would suggest to the article is that the reference that next to the sentence "Although City Thameslink is a through-station, for ticketing purposes it is classed as a London terminus for Thameslink services to and from the south" gets replaced with this source which is what you provided as the current source is a dead link. That should get rid of the one dead link in the article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The "recent events" section needs updating. All the information is from around 2010 which isn't recent as we are coming up to 2019. Perhaps the recent events section could be updated with the new destinations City Thameslink is serving and the new trains which serve City Thameslink. Also, in the services section, in mentions "Luton Town" but the station name is "Luton"; not "Luton Town". Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The "Future" section needs updating as well. Maybe it could talk about the new Thameslink services to Maidstone East and Ashford International which are coming in late 2019. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

In the "services" section, there are some services with "Thameslink" around the brackets. As all the services at City Thameslink are Thameslink services, this is not required. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Where are your sources of information for this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The source is this for the new Thameslink services to Maidstone East which are delayed until December 2019. That can go into the future section as they will stop at City Thameslink. The "recent events" section is outdated. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

That's about the Thameslink network. There's no mention of City Thameslink as a station. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, looks like it's going to be next week before I can sort this out as I haven't been able to be around much over Christmas / New Year. I need to revisit some sources I got out of the library. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed the dead link and am going through news sources seeing what else I can dig out. There's some useful stuff about lost property and the 2018 timetable signalling changes; I've dropped them in. I'll see what else turns up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have addressed the above issues, including adding additional services and timetables, bringing us up to date with the reintroduced St Albans / Harpenden services, and mentioning the class 700 trains. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That's good. I will do the formal review and give out the final result tonight. Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and for your fixes. The London station coverage is gradually improving. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)