Talk:Midland Main Line upgrade

Untitled

I propose a series of articles on various UK railway upgrades. This is one. Making a start GRALISTAIR (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Needs a complete rewrite

This article needs a complete rewrite. It doesn't even mention things like when electric services started from Corby, and everything's confusingly ordered. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Be bold. Get editing then GRALISTAIR (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I am flagging an issue for the benefit of other editors. My time to edit Wikipedia is limited.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Midland Main Line upgrade/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: JuniperChill (talk · contribs) 12:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 10:44, 1 August 2024 (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.	Lots of sentences need improvement. Extended content There were a number of proposals to electrify the line over many years but the 2012 proposal and announcement by the UK government was that it would include electrification of the railway line between Bedford, Wellingborough, Corby, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. This sentence is a bit long and could be split up: The current programme of upgrades began in 2012, although electrification was proposed a number of times previously. The current programme includes electrification of the railway line between Bedford, Wellingborough, Corby, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. Done This was also part of a rolling programme of railway electrification projects. Does this need to be its own sentence? Removed To enable all the benefits of using electric traction, the line south of Bedford into London St Pancras is also being progressively upgraded including boosting the power supply Better wording/punctuation needed here Reworded Parts of the line have been classed as congested infrastructure hence another reason for the upgrade. The sections underway as of June 2024 are the electrification from Kettering to South Wigston as well as the upgrading of the overhead line equipment (OLE) south of Bedford to allow 125 mph (200 km/h) running. These two sections are due to finish construction in summer 2024 and late 2025 respectively. Needs update - Kettering to South Wigston has been energised. Additionally this paragraph could be reworded Reworded The section of the line at the southern end between London St Pancras and Bedford was electrified with overhead line in the early 1980s and finished in 1983. This section is mainly a commuter route and is often called the Bedpan line. Could bedpan line be incorporated more naturally here? The section at the southern end of the line between London St Pancras and Bedford, nicknamed the Bedpan line, was electrified with overhead line in the early 1980s and completed in 1983. or alternatively the Bedpan line could be omitted entirely. Done Then privatisation and a change in government intervened. This sentence is a bit awkward Reworded In July 2009 the Labour government published a document and said it was looking at electrification of the Midland Main Line but no funds had been committed. Needs better punctiation Added commas Ryan Scott the Network Rail Programme Engineering Manager was quoted as saying that the minimum number of platforms at Sheffield station – (Sheffield Midland) would be wired to avoid having unnecessary cost added when the station was later remodeled. The whole MML scheme also overlapped with the Electric Spine project. This is weird quotation style. A better style might be Network Rail Programme Engineering Manager, Ryan Scott, commented that the minimum number of platforms at Sheffield Midland would be wired, to avoid unnecessary cost added when the station was later remodeled. I actually did a little reword of what you suggested since Sheffield Midland was the former name and said 'to avoid adding unnecessary In June 2015, the then Secretary of State for Transport Patrick McLoughlin informed Parliament the electrification project was being paused, resulting in criticism from local MPs. is worded weirdly - "the then" could be removed for the same effect On 27 July 2017 a further briefing paper was issued and the Midland Main Line had a section of its own. Needs some commas Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	LEAD: Article has all elements for the lead, provides an accessible overview and adequately describes what the project is, and its current phases. Article also appropriately includes contextual links early on, and lead is appropriately sized. LAYOUT: Sections are appropriately ordered, no applicable specialised order. Images are appropriately sized. Article also uses emdash or endash where appropriate WORDS TO WATCH: None used in the article. FICTION: N/A LISTS: Lists used thrice in article - once to list phases of the project, once as timeline, and once in further reading. Appropriate usage here. However, Article does not have MOS:BOLDLEAD where it would be fairly easy to include, such as: The Midland Main Line upgrade is a programme to upgrade the Midland Main Line, a major railway line in the United Kingdom. This might, however, violate MOS:REDUNDANT.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	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).	Following spot-check of 10/70 sources, sources are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All claims are cited inline
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Using the copyvio tool, result of 15.3%. Of which is just phrases and important info
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses main aspects of the topic
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article occasionally goes into unnecessary detail Following further inspection, article goes into apporpriate amount of detail considering the article subject
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article does not express any specific point of view
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring on this page
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.	Images are tagged appropriately with copyright status, OGL and CC4.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image 1 may need replacing as it is from 2012 and it's for "by 2019" - which was 5 years ago. Is a more recent DfT image available? In other regards, Both images are relevant to the topic and placed in each section appropriately.
	7. Overall assessment.

Discussion

• Excited to get started! Looks like an interesting topic DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Off the bat, I don't see anything that would cause a quickfail so I'll get right into it DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding MOS:BOLDLEAD, the article title is descriptive, just like the Great Western Main Line upgrade (initially titled 21st century modernisation of the Great Western Main Line) and A9 dualling project. Other names include Midland Main Line railway upgrade (former title), Midland Main Line electrification, MML electrification, etc. It was however the case before [1]. So yes I would say it violates WP:REDUNDANT.

  And the files: I have to remember that much of the electrification scheme was either cancelled (Cardiff to Swansea and Windermere), deferred (Oxford to Didcot/Bristol to Chippenham). From my understanding, the red lines were supposed to be complete by 2019. JuniperChill (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  I see DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Since I have been editing for a while, I will take a pause/break for today. I did the first part of the GA nomination. I should be able to do this tomorrow. JuniperChill (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good so far, I’ll take another look at it when you finish up DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Done 1a JuniperChill (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  I’ll take a look at it DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  The lead section does not currently comply with MOS:LEADCITE. 86.5.112.204 (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I looked into that too, but MOS:LEADCITE is pretty vague about whether or not to have citations in the lead.

• The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Since that is an MOS, only a few are applicable to the GA criteria. MOS:LEADCITE is not one of them. If this was an FAC, then that would apply (since FAs have to comply with almost all the MOS). See also: WP:GANOTJuniperChill (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 00:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the electrification of the Midland Main Line north of Kettering was revived in December 2021 after being paused in 2015, then scrapped in July 2017?

• Source: paused scrapped in 2017, then revived

• ALT1: ... that the Midland Main Line electrification project is going at a "snail's pace"? Source: https://westbridgfordwire.com/midland-mainline-electrification-by-2030-in-government-plans/
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Azahriah
  Template:Did you know nominations/Eve (Stellar Blade)
• Comment: My fifth nomination and I need a QPQ for the first time. Luckily, I did that a few months ago. Also, my first GA article, though I didn't make that

Improved to Good Article status by JuniperChill (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

JuniperChill (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC).

• What's surprising or interesting about this hook? "Infrastructure project delayed" is not surprising anywhere in the world, especially an Anglophone country. (t · c) buidhe 04:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Hopefully this is more interesting, but idk if the wording is the best.

• • • ALT2: "that when the Midland Main Line was first electrified in the 1980s between London and Bedford, driver-only operation was introduced, leading to industrial dispute?"JuniperChill (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
      • ALT2A: "that when driver-only operation was introduced after electrification of the Midland Main Line south of Bedford, it was the subject of industrial dispute?"
      • Drive-by ALT3: ... that although the electrification of the Midland Main Line was designated high priority in 1981, work to electrify the northern part of the line did not begin until over 30 years later? Kimikel (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
        • @Kimikel: Remember that the section of the MML south of Bedford was electrified in the 80s. However, north of Bedford, it remained unelectrified until 2019, and it only extends to just south of Leicester, formerly Kettering until July 2024. So maybe adding "north of Bedford" would make more sense. JuniperChill (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the correction, just clarified. Kimikel (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

 Reviewing... Starting a review. Flibirigit (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - ?
• Neutral: - ?
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - ?

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - ?
• Interesting:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: The article passed GA status on August 5, and nominated the next day for DYK. Length is adequate. Sourcing needs improvement. I have added multiple citation needed tags where the source is unclear. There are WP:CLOP issues with here because the Wikipedia does not attribute the direct quote as per the original source. Both images used in the article are freely licensed on the Commons. A complete QPQ has not been done. The reviewer only commented on dates and hooks, and did not appear to check any of the other DYK policies. Please see WP:QPQ for details. I am still analyzing the article for neutrality and the hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Flibirigit (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I question the neutrality of this article due to extensive use of quotes in the "21st century proposals" section. Why are the comments by "Ryan Scott" important, and is he even notable? If not, please paraphrase. The quotes by Patrick McLoughlin are not properly attributed, and I question whether they can be paraphrased instead. This also would also benefit from the use of the {{convert}} template for measurements. Articles should be readable by persons not familiar with British units. I'm still contemplating the hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I have struck ALT0 for being boring and mundane. As noted by User:buidhe, it is not uncommon for large infastructure projects to be delayed. I have struck ALT1 for presenting a quote by a "council leader" as a fact. Any such quirky quotes must be clearly identified as a quote, never as a fact, and be properly attributed and cited in the nominated article. I'm still pondering the other two ALTs. Will comment further tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

ALT2 and ALT3 both have potential to be interesting hooks. ALT2 should be slightly reworded to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE by consecutive wikilinks. ALT2 claims "leading to industrial dispute", whereas the text in the article states "subject of an industrial dispute". There is a difference here in causality, and the source is only available to those logged into the host site. Please clarify and make consistent. The first half of ALT3 is easily verifiable, but I am unsure where the source is located for "work to electrify the northern part of the line did not begin until over 30 years later". Please clarify and cite the source. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have rephrased my ALT2 hook named "ALT2A" (see above). I also note that MOS:SEAOFBLUE only applies if there are two blue links next to each other, without a divider, like in the example I just gave. The original hook had a comma between the two. Additionally, it looks like a lot of work has been done to remove the citation needed tags by another editor. Sorry if I wasn't available, I was on a mini-holiday. I will also provide a new QPQ review. JuniperChill (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

New QPQ provided. Also updated the review section accordingly. JuniperChill (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Will review the changes and post a reply within 24 hours. Flibirigit (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The QPQ for "Eve (Stellar Blade)" is valid. Thanks. Will continue with the rest of the changes during the day. Flibirigit (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns are mostly resolved, except for one citation needed tag on the first paragraph in the "History and earlier proposals" section. Please see the neutrality and CLOP concerns listed above. I suggest paraphrasing the lengthy quotes, or using direct attribution where necessary. I have struck ALT2 in favour of the stronger ALT2a with better wording. Please resolve the concerns for ALT3 for it to be approved. As noted above, the QPQ is complete. Flibirigit (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Added one last citation, paraphased some of the quoted hooks, and found a source for the final part of ALT3. JuniperChill (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing issues have been resolved. I have duplicated the necessary citation to support the second half of ALT3. Tentative approval is for ALT2 and ALT3. There are still WP:CLOP issues with this quote by Patrick McLoughlin, because the Wikipedia does not attribute the direct quote as per the original source. Concerns about neutrality have still not been addressed. Please see the paragraph above which begins with "I question the neutrality of this article". Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

So to recap, I provided a new QPQ (good thing I've been reviewing articles long before my 5th nomination), added sourcing (though it was mostly added by another editor), provided an interesting hook (after they were struck out) with a source to back it up, and fixed some attribution issues. I also provided conversions using the convert template (I usually do it manually since 1mi is ca. 1.6km and I find it easier to do that). But in short, since the last comment, I (may have) finally fixed the attribution/neutrality issues! But since its midnight for me (in the UK, the same location as the subject of this page), I have to go and sleep now and won't be back until ca. 16:00 UTC/17:00BST. JuniperChill (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Approving ALT2 and ALT3. WP:CLOP and neutrality issues have been resolved. Quotes have been trimmed and attributed. I see no other concerns here. Flibirigit (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge

I have now merged in the article Wellingborough Aggregates Terminal. GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)