Jump to content

Talk:Baker Street and Waterloo Railway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Featured articleBaker Street and Waterloo Railway is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starBaker Street and Waterloo Railway is part of the Underground Electric Railways Company of London series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 10, 2012.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 16, 2009Good article nomineeListed
January 10, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
November 1, 2012Featured topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 13, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the London Underground's Baker Street and Waterloo Railway was built so Londoners could get to cricket matches?
Current status: Featured article

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baker Street and Waterloo Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baker Street and Waterloo Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd have expected a mention of the modern London Underground earlier in the lead
  • I'm concerned that the article goes into unnecessary detail in places, which hampers readability. For example, the subsection on the failed 1898 bill is nearly 400 words long in an already-long section and this long before we get to the building of the line. It's followed by another 400 words on a mostly unsuccessful proposal. These should be distilled and summarised in my opinion.
  • Some repetition, eg the Metropolitan Railway and Paddington station are introduced twice
  • Precise names and dates of enabling acts feel like excess detail. In fact, there's quite a bit of redundancy and excess detail throughout. Edits like this reduce the wordiness without the loss of any necessary detail or understanding.
  • A lot of the footnotes could be removed without any loss of understanding of the main subject. For example, detail about the lifts at stations feels far too in-the-weeds for an article about a railway line.
  • Some duplicate links could use attention.

Overall, this is an excellent article but in places feels like a general history of the Underground system, information which would be better presented in other articles so this one can focus on its subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]