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 SandyGeorgia 23:50, 18 April 2009 [1].

---

Tunnel Railway[edit]

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another in the "long forgotten rail electrification projects of south east England" occasional series; those who remember Hellingly Hospital Railway's FAC may feel a sense of deja vu here, as this is very similar in both topic and structure. It's recently come through GAC unscathed, and I think meets the FA criteria as well. Short-ish, but it says all that could reasonably be said about the topic. Copyedited by Malleus – to the extent that he actually has more edits to it than me at present – but any mistakes or omissions are down to me.

I recognize that some of the sections are fairly short – particularly "Operations" – but can't see any obvious way around this. There doesn't seem to be any sensible place to merge the stubby paragraphs to, and any expansion would, I think, just be padding for padding's sake and detract from clarity.

The article does contain two of the dreaded Fair Use Images, but I think they're both justified; File:Ramsgate Tunnel railway air raid shelter.jpg shows the rail tunnels in their wartime role as air-raid shelters, and obviously can't be replicated, while File:Ramsgate Tunnel Railway entrance at Beach Station.jpg shows the design of the trains (unique to this line, so can't be replicated elsewhere), the layout of the station, and the design of the tunnel itself; as the whole setup was closed in 1965 it's unreplicable and in my view adds substantially to the understanding of the article. (Plus, the large "Tunnel Railway" sign settles the issue of what the line called itself – as the lead suggests, it's amazing how many different names it's referred to by in various sources.) It also contains three maps; two I've left at thumbnail size, but one I've forced the image width to 300px to ensure the readability of the captioning and visibility of detail; to me, this is a legitimate use of width forcing per WP:MOSIMAGE, but I don't have strong feelings on the matter so if anyone really objects to it, I won't argue about reducing it back to thumb size. – iridescent 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should be able to turn Ramsgate Town railway station and Ramsgate Harbour railway station into bluelinks using some of my railway books. Just give me a nudge on my talk page if I haven't done anything by the weekend (I'm liable to forget!). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not, I can rustle up at least one-line stubs from Mitchell & Smith to turn the redlinks blue. All four of the current redlinks are undoubtedly valid links (in that they're on topics we should have articles on) so they shouldn't be an issue regarding the FAC. – iridescent 01:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Disambiguation and external links check out fine with the respective checker tools in the toolbox, as does the ref formatting with the WP:REFTOOLS script.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Support - wow, I sure learnt a lot of new stuff from this article for someone who grew up in Thanet and attnded school in Ramsgate for seven years! :-P Anyway, some pointers:
  • First para of lead is only one sentence, suggest the paras be re-jigged somehow
    • I've expanded the first paragraph a bit with a very brief "why it was built and why at this time?". I don't want to go into too much detail but I think this is an acceptable compromise. – iridescent 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sub-sections of "Background" are really short, are the sub-headings really required?
    • I flip-flopped on this one; the version without the subheads is also problematic, as it makes for some rather stodgy chunks of text. I've no strong opinion either way; if anyone feels the "no subheads" version is better I've no problem at all with removing them. – iridescent 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paras in general are very short, with some of only two sentences or even just one. Suggest some shorter ones be merged together
    • Removing the subheads would solve this for the first section; for the latter sections, the problem paragraphs ("Initially, the tunnel was decorated with illuminated scenes depicting Switzerland, Canada, The Netherlands, Japan and Egypt." and so on) are placed where they are because there's no obvious way to expand them, but they'd be out of place merged with their neighbours. If you can think of a way to merge them without creating jarring discontinuities, do feel free! – iridescent 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)#[reply]
      • I've merged various paragraphs together to eliminate those that were only one or town sentences long. I think it still reads absolutely fine, what do you reckon.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good to me – it seems to solve the "choppiness" issue without detracting from any meaning. Thanks! – iridescent 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In different places you refer to "World War I" but "the Second World War" - be consistent
    • Blame Malleus for that one! Changed back to World War II, following the "use the title of the Wikipedia article on the subject unless there's a good reason not to" unofficial rule. – iridescent 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We Brits tend to call it the Second World War, and as it's a British subject I thought that would be appropriate. The important thing is obviously consistency though, so I forgive you. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence under "opening" is unsourced
    • Oops, that one just slipped through – fixed. – iridescent 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good other than that! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

query - The non free image File:Ramsgate_Tunnel_Railway_entrance_at_Beach_Station.jpg is to show the trains which are still in existance, why can an image not be obtained of these existing trains? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trains don't really "still exist" in anything more than the broadest sense of the phrase. There were sold to two preservation societies, stripped of all their engines, driver positions etc, and rebuilt for use as carriages (see here; there's footage of them in use here) – whereas on the Tunnel Railway they were red and yellow self-contained trains, the "surviving" stock at Hollycombe is now a set of bright blue railway passenger carriages that happen to have been built on the bases of the Tunnel Railway cars; a picture of them as they are now would be a great illustration for Narrow gauge railway but would be misleading and fairly useless in an article about how they appeared at this time. Additionally, File:Ramsgate_Tunnel_Railway_entrance_at_Beach_Station.jpg shows the design of the tunnel (now bricked up) and its relative width in comparison to the trains themselves (the width is important, as it's the width which gave space for the unique "around the world" displays); shows the design of the station (now demolished) with its unusual "separate platform on both side of the train" layout and extreme proximity to the tunnel mouth, both of which are hard to articulate in words (although I do try); shows the very unusual in British usage overhead single-cable trolley pole power system (now demolished) which was an almost unique feature of this line; and, while it's certainly not essential, shows the signage of the railway which definitively shows that it was called "Tunnel Railway", which is not as obvious as one may think (each source seems to refer to it by a different name). Even if one did grant that a photo of the trains could be replicated (which I don't accept), it still illustrates multiple other points covered by the article in a way which can't be reproduced as free use. – iridescent 19:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment File:Ramsgate rail lines.png should probably be redone just because of how it looks... but it also has no source to meet WP:V. In fact, a few of the images need verifiable claims made from reliable sources. gren グレン 21:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the problem with it? If it really needs citing, it can be cited ad nauseam from any rail atlas; it just shows the Thanet section of File:Kent Railways.svg in more detail. Regarding "how it looks", not sure what the issue is here; it's identical in style to the images from Hellingly Hospital Railway. This is a rail network diagram; it's intended to be informative, not pretty. Regarding the other images, I can't see any issues or disputes over what they depict; what issues do you mean? – iridescent 21:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB – have added sourcing for this image. – iridescent 22:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note re another image If anyone knows a way to rescue File:Ramsgate001.jpg, it would be much appreciated; this shows the tunnel as it was in the mid 1980s, but is scanned from a 25-year-old transparency and shows it. – iridescent 21:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could ask at WP:GL..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, you learn something every day. I've asked at Durova's talk, which (cynically) is probably read by all the graphics-types anyway but if that doesn't get a response I'll try there. There's absolutely no rush, as it still needs to be confirmed what exactly this is a photo of. – iridescent 20:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Extreme thanks to Durova for fixing this image up! – iridescent 14:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and comments (you don't have to take my advice) - the image in "Route" with the caption "Trains at the lower station" would probably look better in the info box. I feel that the "opening" section under "reopening" might be a little redundant as its own section. Anyway you can split up the sections differently, especially with an eye not to have small sections left alone? It almost seems as if the content could be set under two sections - the main section and a subsection - perhaps combine "route" with the section above and "opening" with "construction" and call it "New line" or whatever. The 1926 image in "Wartime" might be a little iffy as fair-use. I will let better image experts weigh in on that. I would combine the "After the closure" with the "Post-war operations" section. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Trains at the lower station" is a fair use image; I dislike using FU images in infoboxes or other very prominent positions, as to my mind it makes it more likely people will use them inappropriately. (AFAIK there's no policy about it, it's just a personal preference). Also, it's quite tall and thin so would make the infobox very long, and consequently push the maps out of position on wide monitors – and the maps really ought to display next to the paragraphs they're attached to, as they illustrate the particular changes to the layout in 1926. Regarding the air-raid shelter image, it's not essential, so I can remove it if there's consensus that there's a problem; it's almost certainly Crown Copyright, and hence now public domain under the 50-year rule (I can't imagine the authorities allowed people to take photos of military installations during wartime), but as it's uncredited anywhere I can't prove that.
    I've fiddled with the sections slightly to get rid of the short "Operations" section, and renamed "Reopening" – I never really liked that as a title but couldn't think of an alternative. "After the closure" is a deliberate attempt to have at least a slight "legacy" section, by separating out the closure process itself from the subsequent demolition. It's short partly because there are some very thorny legal issues regarding exactly what took place at the Pleasurama buildings in the years following the line's closure (they can't be repeated here per BLP, but google "Jimmy Godden", the owner of Pleasurama and its successors, for an idea of the issues involved) – it seemed best to stick to the most basic and neutral "it was demolished". – iridescent 19:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to the above – you've convinced me, and I've deleted the "Air raid shelter" image. – iridescent 19:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments I have made a couple of edits to the article to tighten the prose in a couple of places. I have a few observations and questions:
  • Background
    • The article states that the population had more than doubled to over 20,000 by the 1920s but there isn't a previous population figure or year given to indicate from what date this change is measured. According to the censuses, the population of Ramsgate was already 27,733 by 1901 and was 36,561 in 1921.
      • Fixed. I'd like to keep the "doubled" (or similar) in there to make it clear how fast the population was growing in this period. The "20,000" figure is from Mitchell & Smith, who are generally meticulously accurate. I agree that it doesn't tally with census data – possibly they only counted adults, or were using a narrower geographical area. I've removed the figure altogether, as I don't think there's any doubt that the population roughly doubled between 1863-1926, and it's the rate of expansion that's significant rather than the figures. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could mention what happened to the top bit of the original tunnel not used by the narrow gauge line. Subterranea site seems to indicate it was just closed off.
      • As far as I know, it's still there (and the entrance still visible) albeit sealed off. Reliable sources seem hard to find after the end of its wartime use as an air-raid shelter. As I can't find a source for it (I've no doubt Subterranea Britannica is correct, but they're by no stretch a reliable source by Wikipedia standards) I've left it out – it doesn't really matter for this article, which is explicitly about the section of the tunnel that did remain in use. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction
    • Suggest renaming the section to Construction and Infrastructure as half of it deals with the trains.
      • ✓ Done – completely agree. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although it isn't stated, presumably each of the two halves of the yellow train had a driver's cab whereas the red train originally had just the one. Does that mean that the red train had to reverse through the tunnel or could the car with the driver's cab be detached and run around to the other end?
      • Each of the two halves of the yellow train had two drivers cabs – one at each end – and when it was run as a single train the halves were coupled together drivers-cab to drivers-cab. I was trying to avoid veering off into detail about the workings here, but can certainly add a paragraph if you think it's necessary. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So presumably, the red train had cabs at both ends as well, avoiding the need to reverse. --DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes – have now fixed this in the article, both to clarify that there was a cab at each end, and that the yellow train had spare drivers cabs in the middle to allow it to split. – iridescent 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably, as the tunnel is cut through the chalk underlying the town it is not lined with tunnel rings and was excavated using traditional mining techniques rather than needing a tunnelling shield - aiding the speed of construction.
      • I honestly don't know. The only photograph of the tunnel under construction of which I'm aware (in Mitchell & Smith) just shows a large steam-shovel rather than a "true" tunnel boring machine, but in the absence of facts I don't want to speculate – the steam-shovel may have just been used for particular tasks. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say the new tunnel was far smaller than the original tunnel - what were the dimensions of the original tunnel?
      • I don't know, is the honest answer. It accommodated standard gauge double track, so at least 26ft × 13ft, but nothing seems to give the full dimensions. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the tunnel only took 12 weeks to construct, it seems unlikely that the decision to use electric trains was only taken after construction began as it is unlikely that the equipment and trains could have been designed and built in such a short period.
      • I've moved a paragraph and changed "construction" to "planning"; the decision to electrify it using overhead cables was taken in 1934-35, while construction was from May-August 1936. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any information on the cost of construction?
      • Not that I can find, and Harding (who's fairly exhaustive) doesn't mention any specific figures for costs
  • Opening
    • "Throughout the 1937, 1938, and 1938 seasons" should, presumably be "Throughout the 1937, 1938, and 1939 seasons".
      • Oops! – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wartime
    • Is "vast" a reasonable description of the size of the air-raid shelter system, even if it could hold 60,000 people. Perhaps extensive might be more appropriate.
      • I can change to "extensive" or "large" if you think "vast" causes problems; I was trying to emphasise just how big this was in proportion to all other air-raid shelter schemes (with the exception of Barcelona) – this was large enough to hold twice the entire civilian population of the town. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did the shelter provide over-night accommodation or just during an attack, i.e. did it provide bed spaces or just places to sit?
      • I can't find a definitive answer; photographs of the shelters in use just show people standing about, rather than London-style "home from home" shelters. Veering into original research, I doubt the ventilation system (10 airshafts for almost 4 miles of tunnels) could have coped with large numbers in the tunnel for long periods, but I can't find anything definitive either way. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For information, according to the 1939 National Registration of England and the Isle of Man, the population of Ramsgate Metropolitan Borough on 26 September 1939 was 32,929 - slightly less than 34,000.
      • The 34,000 figure comes from The Railway Gazette, which I'd consider reliable on railway matters but not necessarily on population. I've changed it to a vaguer "approximately 33,000" – the population of a heavily militarised city smack in the middle of the projected invasion route during wartime is impossible to state accurately. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-war operations
    • What reason does Harding give for the decision to close the railway? It does not seem to have been related directly to the accident as the owners went to the trouble of rebuilding the station and continuing services for the remainder of the 1965 holiday season. Was it economic?
      • Harding's explanation of the decision – in full – is: "The station was soon repaired and trains continued to operate for the rest of the 1965 season although the railway had for some time begun to have a "run down" appearance. The accident must have had an effect on the minds of the owners […] and a decision was taken to close the line as the 1965 season finished." and no other source even speculates on the reason for the closure. It's easy enough to speculate (the impact of cheap automobiles in the 1960s, the decline in British resorts following the lifting of currency controls, stricter health & safety legislation, the decline of Ramsgate port as a passenger terminal etc) but there don't seem to be any hard facts about the decision. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The impact of cheaper foreign holidays would be my bet as well.--DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comments
    • Is there any information on the profitability of the railway throughout its lifetime?
      • Again, not that I can find; none of the sources mention costs or profits at all. As it served as a loss-leader in getting customers to the amusement park and greyhound stadium, I suspect it would be impossible to quantify costs and benefits. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any more information on passenger numbers throughout its lifetime? Only the 20,000 passengers carried over the opening bank holiday weekend are mentioned (for 108 people per train fully loaded that's about 60 journeys a day for three days).
      • The opening weekend is the only one for which numbers seem to exist. Anecdotally, passenger numbers seem to be quite low (there are no photos that ever show the trains more than half-full) but no hard figures. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any idea how long the journey took over the 1.32 km and what speed did the trains achieve?
      • Five minutes end-to-end, over a total distance of 1320m (including the stations), making a average speed of 15.8 kilometres per hour (9.8 mph); I don't know the top speed but assume it would be about 10mph. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quite leisurely, then - giving enough time to enjoy the World tableaux.--DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might be useful to link to this regarding the air raid tunnels. It contains some photos of the railway tunnel in war time mode.
      • I linked to the Subterranea Britannica page, which includes some photos of them in use both as a rail line and as a shelter. Blogspot links tend to get removed fairly quickly – I'm also reluctant to use the Thanet Underground one as it includes some dubious figures which don't tally with any other source. – iridescent 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK.--DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • --DavidCane (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. EDIT: Struck oppose. Steve ^{T • C} The article seems pretty comprehensive and well-researched, but I do think the prose could do with another pass. I don't think it's too far off, so don't worry overmuch about that oppose (see the link for why), but it's not quite there yet. Some of the issues detailed below fall into the subjective "but what makes good prose?" category, so feel free to exercise editorial judgement in incorporating these (i.e. it won't prevent my hopefully-eventual support if you choose not to), but others are grammar slips or ambiguities that it would do good to address. Steve ^{T • C}

  Lead

  • Is the disambiguation link to Ramsgate railway station necessary? Removing it would help declutter the top, and the link is already included in the body. Would anyone searching for the current Ramsgate railway station put "Tunnel Railway" into the search box?
    • No-one searching for Ramsgate railway station would search on "Tunnel Railway", but they could reasonably be typing "Ramsgate" into the search bar and follow the link from Ramsgate Cliff Railway, etc, which redirect here. The disambiguation header has to be there anyway as it's necessary to disambiguate "Tunnel railway"/"Railway tunnel", which is a very likely error for many non-English speakers (the word for "underground train" in most Germanic languages is some variant of "Tunnelbahn", e.g the Tunnelbana in Stockholm). I've no strong objection to removing the Ramsgate station disambiguation, but I think it does no harm and might be useful. – iridescent 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point; I neglected to consider that someone might come here from the redirect. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see a definite rule for this, but should those aka's be in boldface?
    • Yes they should; the rule is stated here: "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." --Malleus Fatuorum 12:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been, er, bold and introduced that for the akas. It's not particularly sightly, but that's what they get for constantly changing the name. Steve ^{T • C} 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was decided to close services at the end of September that year." Is it possible to make this a little less passive by saying who decided?
    • I've changed to "the owners decided". As the company owning the railway changed its name just before the closure, I don't want the ungainly "Pleasurama Ltd (formerly Ramsgate Olympia Ltd) decided to close…" in the lead if it can be avoided. – iridescent 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm told that "unviable" is a common misspelling of "inviable". I don't see it, but that's what Wiktionary says.
    • The Oxford English Dictionary, probably a more reliable source than Wiktionary, includes both inviable and unviable. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent, thanks. It never even occurred to me to check the copy that, as I type, is sitting right in front of me. Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 12:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Background

  • "The coastal resort and port town of Ramsgate was historically served by a complex network of unconnected railway lines, the legacy of competition between two rival firms to provide links to London, and to neighbouring Margate." I read this three times before realising the two commas didn't indicate an interruption. Removal of the second comma and the second "to" would resolve the ambiguity.
    • Struck the comma; left the second "to" as removing it seems to suggest that Margate neighbours London, rather than Ramsgate. – iridescent 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much better. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lines from the station ran north, before splitting westwards to Canterbury and on to London, and north to Margate." Parallel structure might work better here (westwards/northwards or west/north). The last statement also feels tacked-on. I don't think it would lose anything by removing "on to", but it would make the sentence read more cleanly.
    • Agree on the "westwards" which I've fixed. Regarding "on to" I disagree; "to Canterbury and on to London" makes it clear that it's a single line, while "to Canterbury and to London" implies two separate lines. (Compare the sentences "Aeroflot flies from Moscow to London and Los Angeles" with "Aeroflot flies from Moscow to London and on to Los Angeles".) – iridescent 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This line ran from London via Herne Bay..." I'm not sure "via" works here with the absence of a "to" subject (e.g. "London to Ramsgate, via...") though an argument could be made that Ramsgate is implicit.
    • "This line ran from London via Herne Bay, Margate and Broadstairs before descending to sea level at Ramsgate through a tunnel" seems clear to me; I'm not sure how I could reword it without some very awkward phrasing ("From London via Herne Bay etc to Ramsgate; on the final approach to Ramsgate it descended through a tunnel" is very clunky). – iridescent 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Satisfied with that rebuttal. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "trains losing control..." Being nitpicky, that should read, "trains' losing control" (you wouldn't say "me losing control", but "my losing control").
    • Rewritten to avoid the awkward noun +ing. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and running through the station and onto the beach..." That might read better if you lost the second "and".
    • Done. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence works equally well without the "additionally".
    • Done. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1926 restructuring

  • "It was decided to link the two lines at Ramsgate to allow through running between the two lines." Who decided? This would be improved in the active voice. Also, the repetition of "two lines" is clumsy; consider recasting the sentence to eliminate one instance.
    • Done, although it means a repetition of "Southern Railway". – iridescent 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the manual of style, disambiguate "ton", perhaps with a link to the relevant article (long ton, short ton, metric tonne).
    • I personally don't think it's necessary. "200,000 tons" is obviously (I hope!) just an approximation, and the difference between metric and imperial tons isn't significant. The short ton is a measurement never used in Britain, and IMO wouldn't be any more appropriate in an article in British English on a British subject than the Hobbit or Talent, regardless of what the MOS says. – iridescent 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to be nitpicky about this given the approximation, I only spotted it in the MOS and thought I'd mention it. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(approximately £20.4 million today)" Should at least say "as of [date]" to give it some precision, so the reader isn't wondering if it's been updated recently. Adding CURRENTISOYEAR will do the trick:(approximately £((Formatprice|((Inflation|UK|500000|1925|r=-3))|0)) as of ((CURRENTISOYEAR)))
    • Done. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whilst" No better than "while" in this context, which is less alienating.
    • Changed "whilst" to "and". --Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thanet Amusements Ltd who" → "Thanet Amusements Ltd, which"?
    • I think "who" is OK here? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It sounded odd to me. Referring to a company, I'd always try to say "a company, which" rather than "a company, who", but this is one of those personal preference suggestions, so I'm fine with it as is. I'll perhaps stick a comma in before "who". Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the new stations were some distance from the attractions along the seafront which was now a long distance from the stations at the foot of a steep hill." Makes it sound as if the seafront moved, rather than the stations. It also essentially says the same thing twice concerning the distance. Suggestion: "The new stations were now a long way from the seafront attractions, which were..." or similar.
    • Rewritten that last paragraph along the lines you suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Tunnel Railway

  • "By 1933 Merrie England, now under the ownership of Ramsgate Olympia Ltd, had become extremely popular, and Ramsgate Olympia Ltd began to lobby the Southern Railway to reopen the line through the tunnel with a new junction station between Dumpton Park and Broadstairs; however, the Southern Railway rejected the proposal as too costly and impractical." Overlong sentence that would benefit for redundancy and repetition trims, and perhaps a split. Example: "By 1933 Merrie England, now owned by Ramsgate Olympia Ltd, had become extremely popular; the company lobbied the Southern Railway to reopen the tunnel line with a new junction station between Dumpton Park and Broadstairs. Southern Railway rejected the proposal as too costly and impractical." This suggestion could definitely be improved upon, but you get the idea.
    • Broken the sentence with the minimal change of replacing a semicolon with a period, which hopefully does the trick. – iridescent 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does! Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keen to make the attractions near the harbour accessible from the railway main line, and to provide a service from the seafront to the greyhound stadium at Dumpton Park, Ramsgate Olympia and the Southern Railway eventually agreed on a scheme by which a new line would use the 780 yards (710 m) of the tunnel nearest the beach, before branching off into a new 364-yard (333 m) tunnel to emerge at a new station at Hereson Road, a 250-yard (230 m) walk from Dumpton Park station." Very long sentence that could do with a split or two. Reordering to place the subjects "Ramsgate Olympia and the Southern Railway" closer to the start would help too.
    • Done. – iridescent 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The company planned the construction of a large-scale housing estate..." Which company? Ramsgate Olympia? It could be ambiguous by this point.
    • Done. – iridescent 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Route

  • "passengers waiting" → "passengers' waiting".
    • I don't think I agree with this. "Waiting" is being used as a participle, not as a gerund, therefore it's an adjective qualifying "passengers" and so the apostrophe signifying possession is inappropriate. Even if it had been a gerund though I still think that this possessive form would be extremely unusual. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're quite right, I misread it; the platform is for the passengers, not their waiting (passengers [who are] waiting to board the train). Steve ^{T • C} 16:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the lower station was never named." That it was never named is directly contradicted in the sentence following ("Olympia", "Beach", "Sands" and "Lower Terminus") even if those were unofficial designations. Perhaps "never officially named"?
    • Done. – iridescent 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Construction & infrastructure

  • "it was decided early in the line's planning to electrify the line." Passive voice that would benefit from switching to active if we know who decided.
    • Done, although it means more repetition of "Ramsgate Olympia". – iridescent 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strike. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A third rail system was rejected due to concerns for the safety of the large numbers of children expected to use the line." Rejected by the company? Again, using the active voice where possible would help to clarify points like this.
    • Slightly ambiguous. Obviously, rejected by Ramsgate Olympia in the sense that they signed off on the final design, but I'd suspect the decision was taken by the engineers (and that "Mr D F Warren, Managing Director", who is credited in the original article with taking the decision, had little to do with it). – iridescent 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the journey would take place entirely in tunnel" → "in the tunnel" or "in-tunnel"?
    • Replaced "in tunnel" with "underground". --Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gone. Steve ^{T • C} 16:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This led to the line becoming semi-officially known as..." → "line's becoming". Also, known by whom? The public?
    • I personally prefer "line becoming" to "line's becoming", but don't have a strong opinion on it. The "semi-officially" is vague because it's very nebulous; "World Scenic Railway" was certainly what some newspapers were calling it – and what at one point was painted over the entrance to one of the stations – and it's equally certain that it was never the official name of the line. Not sure how it could be reworded. – iridescent 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't worry about it; I don't think anyone's ever going to complain about the passive voice when we don't know. "Line's becoming"—the possessive is correct. But while I've been told that "if it sounds clumsy when done correctly then the whole thing needs rephrasing", I'm not going to nitpick and insist on a change to a perfectly readable passage. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Opening

  • "Mr E. C. Cox..." Why the "Mr"?
    • When you're using 1930s sources, you pick up habits of 1930s writing, is the honest answer. Seriously, I don't know what our policy is for names when we don't know the first name (no source uses anything other than the initial); if nothing else, the "Mr" tells us that he was male, and wasn't a knight or lord – which is three more pieces of information than the initials alone would give. – iridescent 20:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • His full name was Lieutenant-Colonel Edwin Charles Cox, CVO, CBE, TD, OStJ (1868-1958) --DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • ✓ Done Replaced. 92.13.155.246 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Wartime

  • "The network was capable of sheltering 60,000 people, compared to Ramsgate's civilian population at the time of approximately 33,000." Not strictly a comparison. "...sheltering 60,000 people; Ramsgate's civilian population at the time was..." seems more appropriate.
    • Changed it to "although". – iridescent 20:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think we even need that "although"—it feels like unnecessary editorialising—but it's on such a minor scale, I'm not going to nitpick. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to these specific points, I strongly recommend another sweep to trim redundant words and phrases, which should make the article read more cleanly and reduce the likelihood of errors' creeping in. It could definitely use it for passages containing things like "under the name of" ("called"), "going instead to nearby Margate" ("going to Margate"—Margate has already been introduced at this point), some instances of "simply" and "also", "in the crash", etc. Other than these issues, I can't see anything in particular that would prevent my future support !vote. I'll watchlist this page, so no need to ping me once you've tackled/rebutted. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 09:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my oppose based on the speedy resolution of the above issues, and the ongoing tweaking of the prose for redundancies and the like. Sorry if some if these seemed too pedantic. I'll nip back shortly to give it another read and consider a support. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, pedantic is good. As with most engineering articles (the SR Leader Class FAC currently a few above this is another good example), because most people working on them are both used to thinking in jargon, and probably have more specialised knowledge than most, it's quite hard to pitch them towards Giano's hypothetical "bright 14 year old with no prior knowledge of the subject" without veering either to patronising or incomprehensible. – iridescent 22:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. All issues resolved or successfully dismissed as the irrelevancies they are. Nice work, Steve ^{T • C} 22:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This sort of local history article is what helps enrich the encyclopaedia. You need to add a link to the article from the transportation section of the Ramsgate article and probably from London, Chatham and Dover Railway and Port Ramsgate. --DavidCane (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done for the first two. Port Ramsgate is such a mess of an article that it needs wiping out and starting again; since it doesn't mention any transport infrastructure at present, I'd need to research and write an entire "road and rail links" section to include it. – iridescent 23:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - this is a random thought, but is there a "before" picture anywhere that can show what File:Ramsgate1.png looked like when the line was in operation? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The now-deleted "air raid shelter" photograph showed the tunnel width (albeit in use as an air raid shelter) but it was fair use and I've deleted it per my conversation with Ottava above. I'm not aware of any free-use pictures of the new tunnel – there are a few photos of the original Ramsgate Harbour station in operation, but none of the tunnels themselves or of any part of the system during its life as the Tunnel Railway (it operated in that hard-to-source period, recently enough that all photos will still be in copyright, but before photography became commonplace). There will possibly be some Crown Copyright (and hence usable on Wikipedia) wartime pictures about, but they'll be hard to find, not helped by the fact that the Ramsgate Archives building was destroyed in a fire a few years ago and the content now dispersed. Iridescent 2 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think this article satisfies all the FA criteria. Unfortunately, it looks a little untidy, especially all those dabs at the top, but I can't see anyway around this. Nonetheless, it is a well-researched and well-written contribution, and I am happy to add my support. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment somewhere in the morass above regarding the dab at the top; I know it's untidy, but I can't see a way to avoid it – disambiguating "Railway tunnel" and "Tunnel railway" (which as well as the "Tunnelbana" issue I mentioned above, is also cognate to "Tube train" so very likely to be returned by machine-translators) is, I think, necessary. – iridescent 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have read through this article, and cannot find any major faults. As GrahamColm states, the Dabs do look untidy, but are unavoidable as they are needed to prevent confusion over the subject matter of the article. A couple of minor quibbles, more out of personal preference than any hard and fast rules, rest with the fact that I believe a couple of images could be moved to the left for presentational purposes, leading the eye to skim over to that side of the page and read something, rather than just be immediately drawn to the right. Secondly, would it completely alter the article if it was moved to Ramsgate Tunnel Railway? It links the title to a place, and still highlights the fact that it was entirely enclosed by a tunnel. However once again, this is personal preference, and has no real bearing on my general support for this well-written and researched article. Well done to the lead editors for what has already been achieved! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early versions did have a left/right alternation of images. I've moved them all to the right, as they were pushing headers out of place which I thought was quite distracting for the reader.
    Regarding the renaming, I did consider titling it "Ramsgate Tunnel Railway" just to make it clearer from the title as to exactly what the article's about. The problem is, that while it's certainly been referred to quite often as "Ramsgate Tunnel Railway" or "Ramsgate Cliff Railway", the only names I can find evidence of ever being used officially (in station signage, advertising etc) are "World Scenic Railway" and "Tunnel Railway". I'm not sure what our policy is in these circumstances (or if we even have one) given that for most articles it's fairly obvious what the name is, but I thought using one of the two at least vaguely official names would be the best compromise. – iridescent 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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