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 Ian Rose 03:01, 30 August 2012 [1].

---

Metropolitan Railway[edit]

Metropolitan Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Metropolitan Railway/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Edgepedia (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after listing as a Good Article, a Peer Review followed by an expansion after I bought a new source. I believe we now have an article that is comprehensive enough for featured article status. This is my first FAC, but I need to thank User:DavidCane for the expansion at the beginning of the article. Edgepedia (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment—the population figures (currently footnote 1) are ridiculously overprecise - the site from which you've taken them has an explanatory footnote explaining why the methodology is unavoidably flawed. ("Greater London" is based on boundaries drawn up in the 1960s, so the figures that site generates are based on the populations of those counties from which GL was carved, and rough estimates of how those populations were distributed across the post-1965 boundaries. "Between 1801 and 1851 the population of what is now Greater London roughly doubled from around 1 million to around 2 million" is about as accurate as you can realistically go. Bear in mind that even if you did have an accurate figure it would be virtually meaningless, since even today Greater London is an arbitrary boundary which includes towns and villages that would never consider themselves part of London, while excluding significant parts of the conurbation such as Cheshunt. – iridescent 22:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an amendment [2] along the lines you suggested. Edgepedia (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Images

• Captions ending with incomplete sentences should not end with full stops. Correct complete sentences have to. (MOS:Image)
• Generally the images look good and pretty informative, well picked.
• Some of the maps use rather weak color contrasts (especially the joint line with 5 different types of lines). Could the contrast and/or brightness be increased a bit (more like the Great Central Railway)? Or maybe i just need a new pair of glasses.
• Some of the images, especially some maps use rather vague "author" descriptions like "Wikimedia editors" or "see edit log". I am no image guru, but when the original author(s) is known, they should be specifically named in my opinion.
• A matter of taste and linking style, but important terms in captions could be linked aswell - optional. GermanJoe (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and I will work through the images. Regarding the "author" field, I would upload an image and this would be edited by other people (I think all of the maps have been), but the author field would not be updated. However, I will update the documentation as I work through them. Edgepedia (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through and changed the map line colours to contrasting ones; I've documented the author field on these drawings as well. Thanks for fixing the caption issue when I was being dense last night. I'm not see any additional linking I can do in the captions - I believe this could be overlinking? I know that items are linked in infoboxes and text, but not sure about captions and text. Edgepedia (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a grey area, so i think, either way is ok. GermanJoe (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether explanatory notes are cited using footnotes or inline

You mean Ref 173 where I think I'm referring to a primary source. Or can you give an example?

• FN32: page(s)?

This is a folded map; there are no pages

• Don't italicize publishers

I'm now using consistantly

((cite web|work = website

((cite news|newspaper = newspaper

((cite press release|publisher = publisher

(or did you mean a book?)

• "Vintage Carriages Trust" or "Vintage Carriage Trust"? Is this a publisher or a work? Be consistent in whether it's italicized or not

Vintage Carriages Trust, see above for use of cite templates

• Be consistent in whether you include publisher location for books

  Done.

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods

  Done. Found one

• Publisher for Walford?

  Done. On-line publisher

• Further reading should be separate section not subsection.

I've removed it. The best book in my opinion is Jackson, unless you wish for more information on rolling stock, in which case one of the rolling stock books (eg Benest) will have more detail. However these are mentioned.

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edgepedia (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have to confess that I haven't read all of this very large article, but on the basis of reading about half of it, it looks pretty good. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• As a general comment, if this nomination is successful that article would become the largest FA in terms of prose size, and will be about 20KB larger than the next-biggest FA! I'm responsible for developing two out of the current top-15 largest FAs, so I can't really complain about this. I'm also a bit of a London Underground-nerd, so I don't mind he detail. However, comments from editors who aren't Underground nerds on the article's length would probably be very useful, and there may be a case to be made for splitting some of the more detailed content off into sub-articles.
  • Yes it's big, but I don't think it's as big as you say. The list above currently lists Michael Jackson as the 10th biggest article. The article size (from the edit history) is 225,474 bytes, this article (currently) is 118,195. I can't get Dr pda's script to work, but selecting the prose in the article, copying and pasting without format into a word processor gives a word count of 15,166 words, 94,651 characters for Micheal Jackson from the start to Discography; this article from the start to References and Notes gives 12,748 words, 78,256 characters. Edgepedia (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK; using the 'page size' tool, this article weighs in at 70Kb of readable prose while the Michael Jackson article is 85Kb (and my whopper, Air raids on Japan, is larger still at 89kb). Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The article's first sentence should cover the entire scope of the article and the first paragraph should summarize the entire content of the article - please see WP:MOSBEGIN. Given the length of the article, I'd suggest adding an entirely new introductory para.
  • ... working on this Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • New first para [3] Edgepedia (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest fleshing the first para out a bit more so it's a summary of the entire article, but that does the job. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The last sentence in the 'Establishment' section needs a reference
  • Just above Construction I'm seeing ...and construction could begin.^[17] Do you mean somewhere else? Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence which starts with "By 1850 there were seven railway termini located..." Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now referenced. Edgepedia (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "A Bill was announced in November 1852,[9] and in January 1853 it held its first directors' meeting and appointed John Fowler as its engineer." - read literally, this means that the Bill held a directors meeting and appointed an engineer. 'Bill' doesn't need to be capitalised.
  • I've rephrased this, correcting the grammar. Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "After a successful lobbying operation, the company secured parliamentary approval under the name of the "North Metropolitan Railway" in the summer of 1853" - if a bill for the railway had been announced in January, why were they still seeking approval in the summer?
  • A bill is not approval; it is the application for approval. Once the bill has passed through both Houses and has received Royal Assent, it then becomes an Act of Parliament, and only at that point can the scheme be considered as approved. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I think that it's the 'was announced' bit which threw me. I'd suggest tweaking that wording as it's a bit unclear what this means. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "an Act" - also shouldn't be capitalised
  • Although bill shouldn't be capitalised, it's normal to capitalise Act. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • All now say 'bill' except when part of a name. Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that's the convention in the UK, OK then. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "and fears that the tunnelling might accidentally break through into Hell" - surely WP:UNDUE either rules this loony viewpoint out, or means that the coverage should make it clear that it was considered nuts.
  • I've removed this. History is not kind to losers, I assume the quote is taken out of context. Edgepedia Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What was a "traditionally excavated tunnel"?
  • Lost this and the "conventionally constructed" later. Jackson gives few details how they were dug. Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "It had stations at:" - there's no need for the stations to then be in dot points, and this isn't consistent with the rest of the article
  • done Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The paragraph which begins with "The new tracks from King's Cross to Farringdon" is entirely unreferenced
  • Referenced Edgepedia Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The last sentence in the 'Baker Street to Harrow' section needs a reference
  • I'm looking at and a school for 200 children.[98][note 24] Should I be looking somewhere else? Edgepedia Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I meant the last sentence of this section's first para (which begins with "There were intermediate stations at St John's Wood Road and Marlborough Road...") Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now referenced. Edgepedia (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "A subsequent Court hearing " - no need to capitalise 'court'
  • court -> Court Edgepedia Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "The use of steam underground led to smoke-filled stations and carriages that were unpopular with passengers" - this should probably be noted much earlier in the article
  • There is a whole chapter on this Jackson. Working on a very short summary Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's wasn't an entire chapter, but hopefully made things clearer with this edit. Edgepedia (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "However, the track through the tunnels from Finchley Road to Baker Street remained single track in each direction" - this reads slightly awkwardly
  • Changed to However, underground line from Finchley Road to Baker Street remained double track, causing a bottleneck. Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What's a "press notice"?
  • Changed to press release. It is still used, but its not in my dictionary. Edgepedia Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The article contains a bit of over-linking (for instance, City Widened Lines and World War I are linked several times)
  • Delinked these two and found some more. Is there a script to find them? Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I'm aware of, though my knowledge of automated tools is rather lacking. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Other important traffics" - 'traffics' is awkward. How about 'other important cargo' or similar?
  • Rephased sentence Edgepedia Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• More material on the Met's finances would be interesting; it seems amazing that this company was able to build a massive underground railway system across London (especially a pioneering system which involved lots of projects which didn't really work out), especially in the context of the relatively slow pace of the Underground system's expansion since World War II. If the data are available, a graph of the Met's financial performance over time would be great. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's more info in Jackson. I will add this last Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanded here Edgepedia (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Nick-D. I believe I have attempted to admend the article or answered all your questions. Please let me know if I have misunderstood, something is not clear or you spot something else. Edgepedia (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support My comments have now been addressed; great work with this highly detailed article. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Editor Away Please note I will be away with no access to the internet from Saturday 11 August to Friday 17 August. Edgepedia (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments - looking good. I will jot queries below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following Monday, 3 July 1871, Mansion House opened and the District and began running its own trains - grammar...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The corresponding sentence in District Railway is also under discussion, at Talk:District Railway/GA2. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the superfluous 'and' Edgepedia (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I've also edited text near here following the discussion linked above. Edgepedia (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extension to a terminus at Aldgate exposed several hundred cartloads of bullock horns before the station opened on 18 November 1876, initially for a shuttle service to Bishopsgate before all Met and District trains worked through from 4 December - what, were they buried....or what?

The sentence in Jackson is A thick stratum of bullocks' horns was encountered at one point, 20ft below the surface, a ready sale being found for the several hundred cartloads removed. I'll rephrase the sentence. Edgepedia (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence has been rephrased [4]. Edgepedia (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking fine from prose and comprehensiveness. a nice read Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "It reached Hammersmith in 1864, Richmond in 1877 and completed the Inner Circle in 1884, but the most important route became the line north into the Middlesex countryside where it stimulated the development of new suburbs." Just a trivial thing, but you might consider: "It reached Hammersmith in 1864, Richmond in 1877, and completed the Inner Circle in 1884; but the most important route became the line north into the Middlesex countryside, where it stimulated the development of new suburbs." Last comma you really need. I'd prefer "more than" to "over" in the second para.
• "the London area the Met"—Consider a comma.
• I've been won over to the serial comma by User:Noetica; but it is optional. Here, though: "Piccadilly and Jubilee lines and by Chiltern Railways", a comma after "lines" is required by logic. The serial comma would go after "Piccadilly" if you wanted to go that way consistently.
  • I've added three commas to the lead and agree that 'more than' is better than 'over' Edgepedia (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks pretty well-written, but I've examined only the lead properly. I remember complaining about tiny text on the schematics, and the problem is still there. "1873, for example ... why can't the text be boosted by, say, 50%, and/or the image made 550px centred. "City Widened" is just too small overall. Tony (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have my default image size set to 300px; it looks like I've left the image sizes as the default thumb. I'll take a look at this. Edgepedia (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Tony. I've been unable to locate your earlier comments but I believe a large part of the problem is the small default thumb size for images that was making the maps illegible so I've fixed these at 300px. I've enlarged the text on the 1873 map as suggested. It looks like I need to nudge a couple of labels and this should be done. (Done) Would be interested in your comments. Edgepedia (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments; I've just returned and plan to have a response for you in the next couple of days. Edgepedia (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have responded to all comments. Edgepedia (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reviewers please note following a discussion at Talk:Metropolitan_Railway#Bullocks_horns_.2F_tower_of_london, the map at Completing the circle has changed slightly. Edgepedia (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments from Johnbod Phew! Very thorough job. Comparing the sources to the bibliography/further reading in Wolmar's The Subterranean Railway the coverage seems pretty good, though stronger on the anoraks than the academics. Reads well. My only cavil is the absence of Metroland (novel) by Julian Barnes and then Metroland (1997 film) of it. The novel has evocative passages on the line that could be quoted to advantage - Betjeman too. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments Johnbod. I think I didn't include the book and film because Jackson (1986) didn't mention them and the articles on the book and film have no references. However, I now see the book won the Somerset Maugham Award in 1981. I will consider adding a sentence to the Legacy section in the next 24 hours. I see if I can find the book in the library when I visit later this week; the amazon pre-view has nothing about Metro-land we could use. Edgepedia (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the sort of thing you had in mind? I'll check the library for a copy of the book later this week. Edgepedia (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barnes's novel is set in the late 1960s, by which time the Metropolitan Railway hadn't existed for over 30 years. (The book is autobiographical, and Barnes was born 13 years after the MR was absorbed by London Transport.) It's no more appropriate in this article than a mention of Sex and the City on New Amsterdam. I'd strongly oppose any references to it; if it's included, than any other book set in Harrow, Pinner or Aylesbury that mentions the Tube has an equally legitimate reason to be included, and we're well on the way to a sprawling "in popular culture" section.

      There are issues with drawing too heavily on Betjeman. Metro-land is very much a tour-guide to the north-west London suburbs in the early 1970s with the railways as a unifying theme, rather than a documentary about railways; it doesn't discriminate between the Metropolitan Railway and the Metropolitan Line (except regarding the Verney Junction and Brill branches, which closed post-nationalisation so can safely be assumed as referring to the MR rather than the ML), or between the competing railway networks that served the area. (Betjeman's most famous railway reference—the section from Middlesex that begins Gaily into Ruislip Gardens runs the red electric train—is actually about the Met's bitter competitor, UERL.) – iridescent 12:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • What's added is fine. I take your point about the dates etc, but a few lines on the afterlife of Metroland as a concept and reality is surely in scope? We have nothing like that down on the District Line sadly. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any other opinion? Edgepedia (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Iridescent, I think what Johnbod is saying is that the concept of Metro-land lived on after the Metropolitan Railway had ceased to exist, and the meaning of the term may have changed. Julian Barnes' book and film has a sub-section in the Metro-land article. Edgepedia (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Only issue dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

• I can't see a citation to the Stephen Halliday (2001) ref.
  • I've removed the book from the list. Edgepedia (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Edge, I think this is your first FAC? In that case we'll need a reviewer to perform a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we look at promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes this is my first FAC. User:DavidCane (author of several FAs) expanded the first two or three sub-sections some time ago. If it's my work you wish to check please look at the article after the Paddington to the City, 1853–63 section. Edgepedia (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the 11 refs to "Wolmar, 2004" & made a couple of changes as a result - [5]. As our article notes: "Farringdon is a historic area of the City of London, represented today by the Wards of Farringdon Within and Farringdon Without. Farringdon is also used informally to refer to the area around Farringdon Station in the London Borough of Islington, some distance north of the historic locality" ie the Farringdon Road, where Wolmar locates the land, goes to not through Farringdon - or certainly did then. The other passage seems mainly concerned with undermining rather than vibration. At note 27 the Wolmar page cited does not give the total figure of £1.3M, but only mentions an extra £300,000. However the initial estimate of £1m - mentioned in the article earlier & cited to someone else - appears earlier in Wolmar. Some refs are combined with other works I don't have - eg Wolmar doesn't give the day (as opposed to the month) of the first VIP ride, but Jackson no doubt does. All ok I think. Myself I would have rolled some of these together and cited longer page ranges. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I don't have a copy of Wolmar to hand. I agree with the first change - xxx Road is the road to xxx. Jackson talks about the slums in the Fleet Valley and mentions everything except the £179,000 land purchase (although calling it favourable terms). However the date of the first VIP trip lead to some frantic page turning! Jackson and Simpson don't mention the date of the first VIP trip. I've therefore removed Simpson as a source on this line, together with the day of the trip. Sorry about that.

Johnbod, the idea of giving each sentence its own reference was to ensure things didn't get lost in copyedits and restructuring, which I think may have happened above. Edgepedia (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the VIP trip is given of page 13 of Day & Reed as 24 May 1862.--DavidCane (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we awaiting a response or action on this point? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On whether the article says in May 1862 or on 24 May 1862 I'm neutral. On the question of a spotcheck for accuracy and paraphasing are you happy or are further checks needed? If access to sources is an issue I could email scans of a few pages of say Jackson tomorrow. (Jackson would be easier to scan than Horne as it's a hardback book.) Edgepedia (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - Are some of the book titles not complete? For example, "Steam to Silver: A History of London Transport Surface Rolling Stock" and "The Golden Years of the Metropolitan Railway and the Metro-land Dream". I noticed this when attempting additional spotchecks (which have not been possible using Google). Could the nominator fix this, and any others. Would the nominators be able to email me a scan of Jackson, Alan (1986). London's Metropolitan Railway, pp. 185–186, and Green, Oliver (1987). The London Underground — An illustrated history p. 44 to complete a few more checks? Graham Colm (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham Colm, I've done research on the book titles. I've corrected some, however the ones you mention Steam to Silver has different titles on amazon.co.uk and goggle.com and Edwards and Pigram amazon.co.uk, google. I've used the titles on the spine; is there an official way of determining the title? Edgepedia (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

erm..not that I know of. I am happy that you have checked. I don't think this is a big deal. Graham Colm (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly one should use what it says on the title page, but not using their capitalization if it's all bold, & often igoring long sub-titles, especially on old books. That & checking how big library catalogues handle it. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I have both the first edition of 1970 and the "fully revised edition" of 1983. Both merely show "Steam to Silver" on the spine, but both have a subtitle in smaller type on the front cover and the title page, and there are three versions of this:

• 1970 Front cover "An illustrated history of London Transport surface railway rolling stock"
• 1970 Title page "An illustrated history of London Transport railway surface rolling stock"
• 1983 Front cover and title page "A history of London Transport Surface Rolling Stock"

Personally I ignore spine titles, and if there is a discrepancy between front cover and title page (as with the 1970 edition here), I go with the title page. That yields either "Steam to Silver: An Illustrated History of London Transport Railway Surface Rolling Stock" or "Steam to Silver: A history of London Transport Surface Rolling Stock", depending upon edition. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the title pages of my editions of these two books I've updated the article to use the long form of the names. Edgepedia (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

• Article: However, the underground line from Finchley Road to Baker Street remained double track, causing a bottleneck.[157]
• Source: Selbie was proposing a new Metropolitan tube line to relieve the serious bottleneck caused by having only one track in each direction through the tunnel section between Baker Street and Fincheley Road, but this did not materialise in his lifetime...designed by the Met's architect Charles W. Clark, who was also responsible for the design of a number of station reconstructions in outer "Metro-land" at this time.[157]
• Article:..designed by the Met's architect Charles W. Clark, who was also responsible for the design of a number of station reconstructions in outer "Metro-land" at this time.[157]
• Source: A number of new stations were modernised, with partial or complete reconstruction of the buildings, and new stations were opened in the outer 'Metroland' area. The new structured were all designed by the Metropolitan's own architect, Charles W. Clark....
• Article: and on 5 January 1925 electric services reached Rickmansworth, allowing the locomotive change over point to be moved.[157]
• Source: A major improvement in this period was the extension of main line electrification north of Harrow to Rickmansworth on 5 January 1925.
• Article: The Hammersmith and City service stopped running to Richmond over the tracks of the L&SWR on 31 December 1906, although GWR steam motor cars ran from Ladbroke Grove to Richmond until 31 December 1910.[147]
• Source: The other service using the Hammersmith & City line...was withdrawn after traffic on 31 December 1906. In its place a GWR steam rail motor worked every half hour between Notting Hilll & Ladbrooke Grove..this too was withdrawn after close of traffic on 31 December 1910.

There are no issues. And my thanks to the nominator for their cooperation in sending me PDFs of the pages I requested for checking. Graham Colm (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review All the images, most of which are PD UK (because of their age), have appropriate licences. Graham Colm (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Graham and Johnbod for spotchecks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.