text:
Talk:Metropolitan Railway

Map
The route map doesnt make sense to me (Do they ever?) Where are all the stations mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To make the route map more compact, it contains concealed sections. You need to click on [show] on the right hand side to see the hidden bits.--DavidCane (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The route map seems upside down to me with south at the top of the map. I would be willing to do the work to invert it, though I don't want to wast my time if I'm the only one. I think the same of Metropolitan line. --Dkbottomley (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I drew it like this; perhaps it was just a copy from the Metropolitan line. At the moment the directions are right: up is up and down is down! Please let me look and see if there's a reason. Edgepedia (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Dkbottomley. I've taken a look at the route maps on West Coast Main Line and East Coast Main Line articles, and they have London on the bottom, so I'm sure what you suggest would be fine. I'm going to be away for a couple weeks, but I will check in when I get back. Edgepedia (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, it would have been better to start a new section for this discussion; would have made it easier to find. No problem though. Edgepedia (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Split?
Suggested by on 12 December 2009 to split into Metropolitan Railway and Metropolitan District Railway. MRSC (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ Somebody had better get on with fixing all the bad District-specific links. I've just found and fixed piece of utter tosh. How many pages link to Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways and thus redirect to Metropolitan Railway when they should really link to Metropolitan District Railway? -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ there are no longer any pages in Article or Template space which link to Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways; I've amended them all to point at the relevant one, and in some cases both, see for example . -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really glad to see this split went ahead. MRSC (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

King's Cross
Did the Met have a King's Cross station. The 1874 OS map shows a station south east of the main station, which is named on an 1899 map as King's Cross (Metropolitn), located on the Widened Lines. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the original building is still there, though a bit disguised. The platforms were moved in 1941.--DavidCane (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, that means the East Coast Main Line diagram is about as accurate as I can get it around King's Cross (at least, it was!). The Metropolitan Main Line RDT needs the station adding, and the King's Cross railway station needs a section adding on the Metropolitan station. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At King's Cross, the 1863-1941 Metropolitan station and the Widened Lines/Midland City/Thameslink station were essentially two halves of the same four-platform station, with a wall down the middle - a situation akin to the present Farringdon station. Indeed, Butt makes no distinction - see p. 134, entries titled "KING'S CROSS Met", "KING'S CROSS AND St PANCRAS Met", "KING'S CROSS St PANCRAS LPTB", "KING'S CROSS MIDLAND CITY BRB", "KING'S CROSS THAMESLINK" BRB". -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a 1913 photo which shows no wall, just an island platform in the middle, Widened Lines one side, Met and Circle the other. Also there are some images here Edgepedia (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, that means that the wall was a later addition, possibly dating to around the time that the present Met/Cir/H&C station was opened. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Update
I've made a major update over the last few days, based heavily on Green, Oliver (1987). The London Underground — An illustrated history. I will be coming back in a few days to write a lead based on the current article, but I'm going to look for more sources; for example Green mentions freight but gives no details. The first underground railway will be 150 years old on 10 January 2013, it would be great to get this to featured status and on the main page on that day. Edgepedia (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Aldergate?
I have spotted "Extension east to Aldergate (now Moorgate) had already been planned as quadruple track between King's Cross and Aldergate so the City Widened Lines were built. Moorgate  opened on 23 December 1865". My problem is that there wasn't an "Aldergate" station. There was "Aldersgate", but that is now Barbican, not Moorgate. According to Rose, both "Aldersgate Street" and "Moorgate" were opened 23 Dec 1865, so the date is correct anyway. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, carelessness on my part; should have looked at the map. Hopefully I now have the correct dates; Green and Bruce say Moorgate Street 23 Dec 1865; Bruce says the widened lines opened to there 1 July 1866.Edgepedia (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

First Underground Railway in the World
Does anyone have a source for this? There is, but this appears to self-published. My books are silent on this. Edgepedia (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tfl will do. Edgepedia (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What about The Story of London's Underground by John R. Day? Any edition will do: in the first (pub. 1963) it's on p. 1, similarly with the 2nd (1966), 4th (1971) and 6th (1979) eds; in the 10th (2008) it's stated twice, on pp. 7, 8; it's certain to be in all those in between, and is probably also in the 11th edition (2010) too. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've put that one before someone suggests that TfL has a COI. Edgepedia (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Met-Vick Locomotive Rating
My sources differ on this I have:

 * Bruce, Steam to Silver, p59: MV339 traction motors, nominal 330 hp
 * Horne, The Met Line, p46: total 1200hp
 * Simpson, A history of..., p145 says 4 x 300 hp, total 1200 hp, although p146 says 1400hp
 * Green, LU illustrated, p44 says 1200hp

seems 1200hp is the most popular. Anyone help with another source? Edgepedia (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, just giving a power rating is misleading - it needs to be qualified. Manufacturers usually give two: a one-hour rating and a continuous rating. Without knowing which is being quoted, we shouldn't say that "because they are different, one must be wrong". I certainly wouldn't trust Simpson: his books are stuffed with typos, spelling and grammatical errors, so what chance his facts?
 * Now then:
 * Note how Bruce is self-contradictory. Second edition of Bruce aside, all agree on 300 hp.
 * It so happens that the MV339 was also used in the Southern Railway 4-SUB stock (and their predecessors right back to the LSWR units of 1915), of which there is plenty published info; the only difference is that the SR geared them 21:59 as opposed to the Met's 23:57. The SR motors were rated 275hp (1-hr), and taking the different gear ratios into account that gives an equivalent rating of hp for the Met motors.
 * I would go for 300 hp per motor = 1200 hp total (1-hr rating). -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Redrose, looks like my edition of Bruce has a misprint. I've update this and the electric locomotive articles accordingly. Edgepedia (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note how Bruce is self-contradictory. Second edition of Bruce aside, all agree on 300 hp.
 * It so happens that the MV339 was also used in the Southern Railway 4-SUB stock (and their predecessors right back to the LSWR units of 1915), of which there is plenty published info; the only difference is that the SR geared them 21:59 as opposed to the Met's 23:57. The SR motors were rated 275hp (1-hr), and taking the different gear ratios into account that gives an equivalent rating of hp for the Met motors.
 * I would go for 300 hp per motor = 1200 hp total (1-hr rating). -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Redrose, looks like my edition of Bruce has a misprint. I've update this and the electric locomotive articles accordingly. Edgepedia (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would go for 300 hp per motor = 1200 hp total (1-hr rating). -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Redrose, looks like my edition of Bruce has a misprint. I've update this and the electric locomotive articles accordingly. Edgepedia (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article
My intent is to list this article at Featured article candidates in the next few days, unless anyone has any adverse comments. Edgepedia (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Metropolitan Railway abbreviation
I find the recent change in abbreviation to MR odd, although I can see the logic. Looking at the sources I have to hand, Bruce, Horne and Simpson all use Met, whereas Green uses the full word Metropolitan. I haven't seen MR anywhere. Edgepedia (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One place to look is the lettering on goods wagons. This was regulated by the Railway Clearing House, not just so that wagons could be returned to the proper railway, but also so that the charges for working over "foreign" lines could be properly apportioned. Accordingly, the RCH did not permit two railways to use the same initials - and as is well known, "MR" were the initials used on wagons of the Midland Railway. I don't have any RCH documents to hand, but I do have
 * where examination of photographs on pp. 140-159 shows that prior to the formation of the LPTB, Metropolitan Railway wagons were lettered "MET.", sometimes modified to either "MET. RY." or "MET. RLY.". Sometimes the full stops were omitted, so the one constant is "MET". -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I made the changes for concision. Previously there were various different usages including the full name and "Met", which was awkward and jarring. The choice of MR is simply because it is the shortest standard abbreviation for "Metropolitan Railway" in accordance with Manual of Style/Abbreviations. The FAC process can be very nick-picky over style issues. Abbreviation as "MR" will also be consistent with the abbreviation method used on the featured articles for the CLR, CCE&HR, GNP&BR, C&SLR, BS&WR and UERL.--DavidCane (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem here is that the Metropolitan interchanged traffic with the Midland - there were, for example, the Midland passenger trains over the Widened Lines to Moorgate, and freight services not just over that route but also exchanged in the Finchley Road/West Hampstead area. If we don't discuss these arrangements with the Midland, we don't satisfy FA criterion 1b and probably not 1c either.
 * I note that Manual of Style/Abbreviations states Some acronyms are written ... with a mixture of capitals and lower-case letters which covers "MetR". -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are only two mention of the Midland Railway in the article, so that would not need to be abbreviated.--DavidCane (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In most cases the Metropolitan spelled out its name in full on locomotives, carriages and multiple units, although two locomotives had MET on the just prior to they became part of London Transport. However, Horne p 5 introduces Met as an abbreviation; Simpson uses on p. 12 without introduction, and both these sources use it throughout. Bruce uses it for a title on p. 24. However, online, this piece written by the Curator of London Transport Museum uses Met in the second para, and Transport for London introduce and use Met as an abbreviation in their history of London Underground. I now think we need to mention Met as an abbreviation, and nowhere am I seeing MR, althoug plenty of the likes of LNWR, GWR and LC&DR.
 * I believe we need to take note of these sources otherwise readers are going to query why an unusual abbreviation is used. Surely reflecting the sources accurately and consistancy within an article is what's needed? Edgepedia (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe we need to take note of these sources otherwise readers are going to query why an unusual abbreviation is used. Surely reflecting the sources accurately and consistancy within an article is what's needed? Edgepedia (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've ordered another book. The first ref recommends as "exhaustively researched and near definitive" so I guess we need that one. Edgepedia (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

citation needed tag
The text in the article is "In 1913, the MR had refused a merger proposal made by the UERL and it remained stubbornly independent under the leadership of Robert Selbie"; the next reference is Green p 43 which starts ''After rejecting the Combine's proposals for a merger in 1913, the Metropolitan maintained a determined independence from its fellow Underground operator for 20 years. The Metropolitan's development for this period ... guided by its able General Manager Robert Hope Selbie ...''. Not seeing the problem at the moment. Edgepedia (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * London Passenger Transport Board, 1933 section
 * Because the two sentences are on such different subjects, it is not obvious that they can both be supported by the same citation. Just repeat the source at the end of the first sentence. --DavidCane (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bullocks horns / tower of london
Why is there a cross through tower of London in the image ?
 * Because it closed soon after opening as mentioned in the caption. Is there a better way of showing this? Edgepedia (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice from the diag. that it was a station - I assumed from the different treatment it was the 'Tower of London', and the cross might represent its above ground location..
 * Suggest - It's a bit disjointed from its 'peg' on the line - would move it down a few pixels, also possibly change the name to "Tower of London St." to avoid confusion. I don't think the cross works - maybe just remove it or gray the text a bit. I think there is space in the diag. to add a "(clo. 1886)" to the right..Oranjblud (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How does the new map look? Edgepedia (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The lighter station mark makes sense. I single lined the "tower of london", added "St." to avoid confusion, and moved it closer to the mark .. I think with station mark differentiated the text doesn't need to be greyed. See this revision. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Completing_the_Circle.svg&oldid=76172815 - ?? Oranjblud (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Also is there any explanation or more detail for the "tons of horns found 20ft below the surface" mentioned? Something to do with a slaughterhouse? but why just horns? I see it is mentioned in various contemporary publications eg  ''The most remarkable discovery was that of a thick stratum of bullock's horns, commencing about twenty feet below the surface, and extending to an unascertained distance beneath. Although the deposit was doubtless made many centuries ago, the horns had suffered so little by decay that they found a ready sale in the market''. The Builder, vol.43 (29 Sep 1882) says Skulls, of which some have by ethnologists been thought to belong to a race inferior in type to the Romans, deer-horns, tons of bullock-horns, and some lengths of elm-wood water-pipes on Tower-hill, were among the things found. I cant find anything 'archaeological' written about it - but it sounds notable - must be something somewhere? Oranjblud (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As the bullock horns were sold, I suspect that this destroyed any archaeological evidence. Edgepedia (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

MRCE
There is a brief reference to Metropolitan Railway Country Estates under the heading Metro-land 1914-32. MRCE was floated on the Stock Exchange in 1919 and became a substantial housebuider in its own right - possibly one of the largest in the 1950s. Its main operating associate, Whelmar, was sold to Christian Salvesen in 1968 and the remainder of the business was taken over by Guardian Royal Exchange in 1971. Is there a case for a separate entry on MRCE? Bebington (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean an Metropolitan Railway Country Estates article I believe that the company is notable. It became independent in 1933 on the creation of the LPTB. Edgepedia (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

First Station
Which was the first station built for the Metropolitan Railway? Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 15:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Simply south. When the Metropolitan Railway opened on 10 January 1863 (as detailed at Metropolitan Railway), all seven stations opened at the same time. Jackson doesn't give much detail as to their construction except to say that Farrington Street was a temporary wooden structure (this moved a couple of years later) and they do not appear to have been well received at the time.(see Jackson, pp. 24&25 for more details) I don't see that building one station is of much use to a railway company as they needed all seven to run a service. Does this help? Or perhaps you could re-phase the question if I have mis-understood. Edgepedia (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The map File:Completing the Circle.svg
Some aspects of the map at File:Completing the Circle.svg look wrong: Winstonsmith99 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Whitechapel has a circle on the green and grey lines, presumably indicating that it is an interchange station, but it is not shown as an interchange station on the black line. The article on Whitechapel station suggests that it was an interchange station from 1884.
 * 2) The circle for Whitechapel on the green and grey lines is shown as some distance away from the station mark on the black line, but in fact the platforms are in the same location, at the scale of this map.
 * 3) The closed Tower of London station has the label "Tower of London St." but there is no Tower of London Street, and the station was never called anything except "Tower of London" until it was reopened in a larger form as "Tower Hill". The "St." should be removed.
 * Hi Winstonsmith. I think the 'St.' was supposed to mean station, but I've removed it as it's confusing. Regarding Whitechapel station, as far as I can make out, the District Railway station opened in 1884 as Whitechapel (Mile End) (according to Rose), or Whitechapel & Mile End (according to Crossrail), separate from the East London Railway station, see the previous link. To try and capture this I've placed two circles as close as I can. This is what Jackson has done in his diagram on page 111 in his book. Edgepedia (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that looks much better. I haven't read Jackson, but at least the map looks plausible now.Winstonsmith99 (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In tunnel or in a tunnel
This edit changes "had opened a single track railway in tunnel with new platforms at Baker Street" to "had opened a single track railway in a tunnel with new platforms at Baker Street." I'd always assumed that "in tunnel" was an acceptable and appropriate form for usages like this and has a slightly different meaning from "in a tunnel" where it seems to specify a particular tunnel. To me "in tunnel" is somewhere between a non-counting noun and a mild technicalism meaning that it's in a tunnel, or in some tunnels, or whatever, but as an overall (hoho) property rather than drilling down (haha) to a specific thing. Does this make any kind of sense at all, or should I just go and get a nice cup of tea? I'm certainly not up for a fist fight with Stephen over this, but would be interested to discuss it. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding like a walking OCD disaster area (ahem). Possible examples of what I think is the same sort of usage (incredibly hard to find in a fair and easy way and not cherry pick for or against my case!!)

 * City Tunnel (Malmö) - first paragraph
 * Spiral (railway) seems to apply it as normal usage quite consistently
 * Picc-Vic tunnel - second sentence of that section
 * British Rail Class 373 - in the text of the note
 * These seem to support the idea that there is a legitimate usage "in tunnel" which is different in flavour from "in a/the/some tunnel/s" or other variants. But what do I know? Nuttin'. In the meantime, that cup of tea is demanding toast to accompany it ... best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lose the indefinite article. "In tunnel" is perfectly good English. That, and the fact that the M&SJWR ran in two tunnels, with a 200 metre section of open line between them, at the south end of Lord's tube station. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken out the indefinite article, and copy edited the change. Edgepedia (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, both - seems right, and reads better, to me. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely happy to defer to you: it's just a phrase I've never come across. It appears to be an adjectival construction of the sort that might go in front of a noun (an in-tunnel locomotive), but without the noun. Anyway, it's your page: I didn't realise that what I was doing was contentious! If it is, then please leave the phrase as it was before I interfered. Best wishes!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Games (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening date
This is a FA and soon it will be feature in Wikipedia's main page, but please can any of the regular editors double check the opening day. The Economist,which back then reported the event and the TfL site here, these reliable sources say the anniversary is on the 9th not the 10th.--Mariordo (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Define "opening day"! The railway opened to the public on 10th January 1863, as the article says and as is noted at the TfL site here, the London Transport Museum site here, London University here, the Museum of London here... There was an inaugural run, not open to the public, on 9th January.  Given the choice of dates, then, it makes sense for this article to be TFA on 10th January as this allows Richard Nixon to appear on 9th January (the 100th anniversary of his birth). BencherliteTalk 16:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I answered basically the same on Talk:Main Page before coming here. Edgepedia (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've clarified this point in the lead. Edgepedia (talk)

The Met?
The mention in the opening sentence is odd. To all Londoners 'the Met' is the Metropolitan Police not the railway; when abbreviated nowadays it'll be called the 'Met line' as in 'The Met line isn't running east of Baker Street again'. I suggest that before this gets featured status someone find a conclusive reference to support it. Even if found an indication that the abbreviation is no longer current my be needed. S a g a C i t y (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. My favoured choice is still "MetR". -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the Metropolitan line: see the opening words "The Metropolitan Railway (also known as the Met) was a passenger and goods railway that served London from 1863 to 1933". It is about a company that ran services across tracks that now form different underground and overground lines, not just the Metropolitan line. The company merged out of existence in 1933.  The use of the abbreviation is not saying that modern-day Londoners still use "the Met" to refer to a company that ceased to exist 80 years ago. BencherliteTalk 18:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The reliable source(s) you are asking for are in the article in the Metroland section: From about 1914 the company had promoted itself as "The Met"... citation::Jackson 1986, pp. 195, 325, see also the publicity material reprinted in Simpson 2003, p. 70. The sources I have read (Jackson, Simpson, Bruce, Horne, et al.) in preparing the article all refer to the company as the Met or the Metropolitan, as well as the two websites mentioned in the previous discussion. London Transport Museum are advertising Steam back on the Met later in May.
 * As to how long the Met is/was in common usage in London I have no sources. Would be interesting to add. Edgepedia (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a note in the lead for further reference. Edgepedia (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

London, England?
Is it really necessary for this article to specify that London is in England? I thought there was a "too obvious to specify" clause for world cities, and the like. I've reverted it twice, though, so will leave others to decide what to do. I am not up for a fist fight over it! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it needs to be linked. I've looked for guidance that I read some time ago saying that it too well known, but can't find it. Edgepedia (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Edgepedia. Well, certainly, if we link it then we will help the unknown (but presumably, er, very large) number of people who could glance at the article, or read its lead, or whatever, and have absolutely no idea about where in the world it could possibly be. :) (I must say that I had to read it right through several times before realizing it was not about London, Ontario, London, Minnesota or London, Kiribati). And I would certainly find just "London" a lot easier on the eye and ear than the repellent and alien formula "London, England" which I find ... challenging, in the extreme. So yes, why not just link the word? Then it doesn't read stupid, and if someone really really really doesn't know where they are then salvation is a mere click away. This sounds like a good compromise to me. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Edgepedia (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DBaK (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Termini
There was a little confusion surrounding this word. Should I link it termini ? Edgepedia (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea - it aids clarity and doesn't harm readability. DBaK (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metropolitan 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140626104202/http://kesr.org.uk/stock-register/coaching-stock/14-stock/coaches/109-no-100 to http://www.kesr.org.uk/stock-register/coaching-stock/14-stock/coaches/109-no-100
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407071607/http://www.spavalleyrailway.co.uk/enthusiasts/Stock_List/ to http://www.spavalleyrailway.co.uk/enthusiasts/Stock_List/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metropolitan 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204105155/http://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/Met1.HTM to http://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/Met1.HTM

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Reference with image of opening
See for article on opening which has image of opening likely in public domain. Article is too nicely together for me to (possibly diruptively) add it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean the pic of people sitting in two open goods wagons, lettered "S&K"? That is not the opening, it is "a distinguished party of people being conveyed in open wagons to inspect the Metropolitan Railway under construction on 24th May 1862" (Day & Reed, The Story of London's Underground (10th edn), p. 13), so the event concerned is more than six months before opening. This photo (which is © London Transport Museum) has been reproduced in several works, and has given rise to the mistaken impression that the early passenger coaches of the Met were roofless. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Victoria line
In the lede; this sentence is confusing me...

Former Met tracks and stations are used by the London Underground's Metropolitan, Circle, District, Hammersmith & City, Piccadilly, Jubilee and Victoria lines, and by Chiltern Railways and Great Northern.

What stations or tracks of the present day Victoria line are former Met line? I find nothing in the article to support the claim that the Met Railway built any infrastructure that was later used for the Victoria line.

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you open up the "Edit" tab to examine the passage concerned, you will find:  The GNCR here is the Great Northern and City Railway, which was owned by the Metropolitan for twenty years (1913-33), so it's technically true. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Metropolitan Railway


text:
Elizabeth Cervantes Barron

Elizabeth Cervantes Barron (March 14, 1938 – February 10, 2020) was a frequent candidate for political offices on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket.

Personal life
Cervantes Barron was born in Los Angeles, California, and was the mother of three children.

Political career
Cervantes Barron ran for U.S. Representative from California in 1974. In 1978 she became the party's "all time top vote getter" when she ran for California State Controller, getting 300,000 votes.

In 1980 she ran for United States Vice President as the running mate of Maureen Smith, winning more than 18,000 votes. She ran for United States Senator from California in 1994, winning 255,301 votes, but lost to Dianne Feinstein. She was the Peace and Freedom Party candidate for California State Controller in 2006, receiving 212,383 votes, 2.5% of the total.

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Elizabeth Cervantes Barron


text:
Saifur Rehman

Saifur Rahman (سيف الرحمن) is a male Muslim name, meaning sword of the Most Gracious.

Notable people with the name include:

 * Akhundzada Saif-ur-Rahman Mubarak (1925–2010), Sufi sheikh of the Naqshbandi Mujaddadi Tariqa
 * Saifur Rahman (Bangladeshi politician) (1932–2009), Bangladeshi economist and politician
 * Saifur Rehman (Pakistani politician)
 * Saif-ur-Rehman (prisoner) (born 1982), Pakistani detained in Chile on suspicion of terrorism
 * Saif-ur-Rehman Mansoor (died c. 2007), Afghan Taliban commander
 * Saifur Rahman Halimi, Afghan-American
 * Saif-ur-Rehman (cricketer, born 1996) (born 1996), Pakistani cricketer
 * Saif-ur-Rehman (cricketer, born 1998) (born 1998), Pakistani cricketer
 * Saifur Rehman Khan, Pakistani politician

title: Saifur Rehman


text:
Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Draicone

This is an archive of community discussion related to the nomination for full custodianship of User:Draicone.

The period for comments on this nomination starts at 01:04 October 26, 2006 and ends at 01:04 October 31, 2006.

From Probationary custodians
I would like to help out in a greater capacity at Wikiversity. I am a well known vandal fighter on the engilsh wikipedia - my user page there is w:User:Draicone. I have clearance for user of both VandalProof and VandalSniper, am assisting in the development of a vandal fighting tool for Wikimedia projects and would like to help co-ordinate efforts at vandal fighting here. I am familiar with sysop tools, especially after managing the now defunct MWT wiki as a bureaucrat, and have over 2500 edits on the engilsh wikipedia. I am familiar with policy establishment there, participate in the wikipedia-l and wikien-l mailing lists, have set up wikiprojects and proposed reforms. --Draicone (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Statement by candidate
 * I suppose I should clarify my involvement at Wikiversity. As some of you may have noticed, I'm a professional php developer and would like to establish a decent php learning system on Wikiversity, among other things; and I would like to help assist with establishment of foundations for Wikiversity, such as proposing guidelines, creating boilerplates, simplifying policy for new users and working on schools (naturally, school of computer science comes to mind). I personally feel Wikiversity has great potential, and with the help of a dedicated community, can achieve a well deserved place in a person's course university education. I feel I should be granted sysop/custodian privelages as I am familiar with the nature of sysop actions and can devote time to handling everything from representation issues to janitorial tasks (some en:wp users are familiar with my spending an hour staring a lupin's anti-vandal tool, spellchecking articles with AWB, developing MWT and adding my opinion to the wikipedia-l and wikien-l mailing lists all at once). --Draicone (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To the candidate: Please indicate who you will accept for your mentorship
 * I will accept any custodian, however I would prefer JWSchmidt, as I have met him previously.

I will mentor Draicone. --JWSchmidt 01:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy to be mentored by JWSchmidt. --Draicone (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * was made a probationary custodian on 26 September 2006; mentor = JWSchmidt.
 * Mentor:
 * Evaluation
 * I nominate Draicone for full custodianship. Draicone has been a probationary custodian since September 26, 2006. Draicone has helped transfer of Wikiversity content from Wikibooks to Wikiversity (see), protect Wikiversity from vandalism and delete pages that were not needed. His efforts for Wikiversity have been facilitated by Draicone's participation at IRC freenode #wikiversity-en, Colloquium and Import. After having served the community during the probationary period, Draicone should be confirmed by the Wikiversity community as a custodian. --JWSchmidt 19:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Community discussion

 * Support -- I mostly see his approach on IRC, where he's always looking for solutions to problems that need solutions. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Draicone's been doing great work on Wikiversity. Cormaggio 15:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Makes good use of the tools. --HappyCamper 23:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Closing comments
Draicone was made a probationary custodian on 26 September 2006 and nominated for full custodianship on October 26. The custodianship of Draicone was open for community discussion from October 26 to October 31. All community comments supported full custodianship for Draicone. --JWSchmidt 15:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Pat Bottrill

Have added information around the use of the unfortunate racial term; I felt it would be fairer to Mrs Bottrill to clarify the context in which it was used, showing the accidental nature of the usage and giving credit to those who spoke nout on behalfn of her long career in caring. HoneyAS (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pat Bottrill


text:
Radiation Oncology/Bile duct

Cholangiocarcinoma
 * Staging
 * Overview
 * Pathology Literature
 * Resectable Disease
 * Surgical Literature
 * Adjuvant RT Literature
 * Unresectable Disease
 * EBRT Literature
 * Brachytherapy Literature
 * Malignant Biliary Obstruction
 * Randomized evidence

 * Periampullary Disease

title: Radiation Oncology/Bile duct


text:
User:Gdegidi/sandbox

Evaluating Wikipedia Article:
(due September 5); Article: Maria Leptin

Everything in the article is relevant to Maria Leptin and her life. The article does seem outdated as it discusses her education and career advancements from 1979 through 2005 but does not address any events before 1979 or more importantly, after 2005 to the present. The article is neutral overall, and does not show bias to Maria Leptin or her accomplishments. However, the article only addresses Leptin's academic endeavors and accomplishments. Edits should include more about Leptin as an individual and her personal life and accomplishments, as well as more information about her career and research interests.

Evaluating Sources: The sources are reliable but biased as the only references are to publications Maria Leptin contributed in and articles pertaining to the European Molecular Biology Organization. The sources do not come from a diverse array of authors, as Leptin is the author of many of them. The interview that was referenced was useful and more references like this one are needed to build on the article, as well as references about Maria Leptin's personal life.

The article is part of the WikiProject Women Scientists as well as WikiProject Biography. The article is rated as C-Class on the quality scale and of High-Importance. There are not existing conversations on the talk page.

-left a question on the talk page.

title: User:Gdegidi/sandbox


text:
Chinese (Mandarin)/Lesson 5

=Lesson 5: Measure words=

Measure Words/量词(liàngcí)
1. 这本书里没有一个汉字.
 * Zhè bĕn shū lǐ méi yŏu yí gè Hànzì.
 * This book doesn’t contain one Chinese character.

2. 那间宿舍有六十个学生.
 * Nà jiān sùshè yŏu liùshí ge xuésheng.
 * That dorm has sixty students.

The phrase 一朵花 (yī duǒ huā) means "one flower," but how would you say "a pile of flowers?" It's simple: just change the classifier. The phrase 一堆花 (yī duī huā) means "a pile of flowers." You could also say 一把花 (yī bǎ huā; a handful of flowers), 一桶花 (yī tǒng huā; a bucket of flowers), or 一种花 (yī zhǒng huā; a kind of flower). You can see that measure words act as adjectives.

In Chinese, like in English, you can omit the noun if it's already known, leaving only the classifier. 你看到那种（花）吗？ (Nǐ kàn dào nà zhǒng (huā) ma?) means "Did you see that kind (of flower)?" You can see that measure words also act as nouns.

Measure words are also used with demonstrative pronouns (this, that). For example, 这朵花 means "this flower," and 那朵花 means "that flower."

You might also encounter something like this: 书架上有书本. (Shūjià shàng yǒu shūběn.) which means "The bookshelf has books on it." Note that the classifier is after the noun. This signifies multiple books where the exact number is not important, here translated "books." The sentence 书架上有书. , means the same as above, but is without the classifier.

Some Common Measure Words
Column key: Trad. is Traditional, Simp. shows changes made for the simplified variant (if any).

See Chinese measure words on Wikipedia for a more complete reference.

title: Chinese (Mandarin)/Lesson 5


text:
Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead

Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead (Prowadź swój pług przez kości umarłych) is a 2009 mystery novel by Olga Tokarczuk. Originally published in Polish by Wydawnictwo Literackie, it was later translated to English by Antonia Lloyd-Jones and published in 2018 by the British independent publisher Fitzcarraldo Editions. The book received a wider release in 2019 when it was published in the United States by Riverhead Books on 13 August 2019. A portion of the English translation was originally published in literary magazine Granta in 2017.

The novel was shortlisted for the 2019 International Booker Prize. Antonia Lloyd-Jones' translation was also longlisted for the 2019 National Book Award for Translated Literature. Tokarczuk was awarded the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature two months after the novel's US release. In 2020, it was shortlisted for the International Dublin Literary Award.

Plot
Janina Duszejko is an ageing woman who lives in a rural Polish village, located near the Czech border in the Silesia region, in between Lewin and Kłodzko. Janina spends most of her time studying astrology and translating the poetry of William Blake into Polish with her friend Dizzy. She had two dogs as pets but they both went missing. One day, her neighbour Big Foot, a frequent hunter, is found dead in his home by Janina's friend Oddball. From Janina and Oddball's inspection of the scene, it seems Big Foot choked on a bone while eating. Janina also finds a shocking photograph in Big Foot's house, the contents of which are revealed in the penultimate chapter. Janina disliked Big Foot because she disagrees with hunting animals. She begins to believe that animals could have killed Big Foot out of vengeance. She writes to the local police, who ignore her theory. The police commandant–called the Commandant by Janina–is also a hunter and is later found dead beside his car by Dizzy. The Commandant's death emboldens Janina's beliefs, but her friends Dizzy and Oddball are sceptical of her. Janina is questioned by police as a witness to the crime scene. One officer accuses Janina of seemingly valuing the life of animals more than that of humans. Janina tells them that she values both equally.

The village's wealthy fur farmer and brothel owner, Innerd, goes missing. Residents are convinced he ran away with his lover. An entomologist named Borys–spelled "Boros" by Janina–comes to the village. He is researching endangered beetles and hopes to convince the Polish government to protect them from extinction. Janina likes Boros and allows him to move in with her. The two eventually become romantically involved. Innerd is later found dead in the forest, with an animal snare around his leg. Weeks later, the President, leader of a local social club and also a hunter, is found dead, covered in beetles.

A new Catholic chapel is opened in the village and Father Rustle, a local Catholic priest and avid hunter, is its leader. In one of his sermons, Father Rustle praises hunters, calling them "ambassadors and partners of the Lord God in the work of creation." Janina interrupts the sermon, yelling at Rustle and the rest of the villagers. She asks, "Have you fallen asleep? How can you listen to such nonsense without batting an eyelid? Have you lost your minds? Or your hearts? Have you still got hearts?" Days later, the presbytery burns down and Father Rustle is found dead.

Dizzy and Oddball confront Janina, telling her they know she did it and the circumstances of the President's death gave her away. Janina shows her friends the photograph she found at Big Foot's house, which shows Big Foot, the Commandant, Innerd, the President, and Father Rustle standing near recently killed animals, including her two dogs. Big Foot, she explains, really did choke on a deer bone, but this event, and her discovery of the photograph, inspired her to kill the next four men.

The next day, police arrive at Janina's house and search it, but she evades capture. Janina flees on foot to the Czech Republic and is then taken by Boros to live in hiding, on the edge of the Białowieża Forest, where she can again be close to nature.

Style
The novel features an unreliable narrator. The protagonist and narrator, Janina, describes the murders that took place without admitting that she herself committed those crimes, until almost the end of the novel. The reader is invited to empathize with the character by sharing her deep concern for the welfare of animals. Her characterization as an eccentric old lady, that is often treated with skepticism or even derision by other characters, further endears her. Her ultimate confession of the murders, therefore, comes as a shock and provides a powerful ending to the novel.

Title
The book draws its title from William Blake's poem "Proverbs of Hell".

Reception
At the review aggregator website Book Marks, which assigns individual ratings to book reviews from mainstream literary critics, the novel received a cumulative "Rave" rating based on 21 reviews: 17 "Rave" reviews, 3 "Positive" reviews, and 1 "Mixed" review.

Kirkus Reviews praised the novel, writing, "Tokarczuk's novel is a riot of quirkiness and eccentricity, and the mood of the book, which shifts from droll humor to melancholy to gentle vulnerability, is unclassifiable—and just right. Tokarczuk's mercurial prose seems capable of just about anything."

Publishers Weekly called the novel "astounding" and wrote that it "succeeds as both a suspenseful murder mystery and a powerful and profound meditation on human existence and how a life fits into the world around it."

Writing for The Guardian, author Sarah Perry favourably reviewed the novel, saying, "It is an astonishing amalgam of thriller, comedy and political treatise, written by a woman who combines an extraordinary intellect with an anarchic sensibility."

In 2019, it was ranked 75th on The Guardian's list of the 100 best books of the 21st century.

Film
The novel was adapted into film in 2017, titled Spoor (Pokot), directed by Polish director Agnieszka Holland. The film won the Alfred Bauer Prize (Silver Bear) at the 67th Berlin International Film Festival.

Theatre
The novel was adapted into a theatre play by Complicité, touring from December 2022 to June 2023 to: Theatre Royal, Plymouth; Bristol Old Vic; Oxford Playhouse; Barbican Centre, London; Nottingham Playhouse; Belgrade Theatre, Coventry; The Lowry, Salford; Grand Théâtre de Luxembourg; Odéon-Théâtre de l'Europe, Paris.

Audio
Polish actress Beata Poźniak narrated the English translation of Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead for Penguin Random House released on August 13, 2019. She received an Earphones Award for best audiobook interpretation.

In May 2020, Fitzcarraldo Editions released an audiobook in the UK read by the book's translator, Antonia Lloyd-Jones.


text:
Phaedropsis glutalis

Phaedropsis glutalis is a species of moth in the family Crambidae. It was described by Heinrich Benno Möschler in 1881. It is found in Suriname.

title: Phaedropsis glutalis


text:
Talk:Electronics/Charge and Coulomb's Law

Practically all of this infomation came from Electronics/Charge, before I added a major section on Coulomb's Law on July 13.

H Padleckas 11:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) H Padleckas 17:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Should we put Electric Field in here?
I'm just about done with this module for now. As a low priority, I may someday put in a picture of forces on q due to multiple point charges. There are a couple things that the Electronics regular authors may want to consider now.

 * This module isn't too long. In the next module Electronics/Voltage, Current, and Power (most of which I wrote), there is a section called "Electric Field."  That module seems longer and a little more material may be added to it under Voltage and Current and more under Circuit.  Should we move the "Electric Field" section into this module or should we keep it where it is?  Eventually, I plan to move it to the "Charge and Coulomb's Law" module and rename the module "Electronics:Charge, Coulomb's Law, and Electric Field."  But if I'm told the consensus is that it should stay where it is, then we won't move it and I'll keep the Electronics/Voltage, Current, and Power name unchanged, because it's a rather small, less important part of a bigger module covering numerous other topics.

 * A number of books don't go into the dielectric correction when first presenting Coulomb's Law. As an afterthought, I added equations on it separately, because I think it's important to mention it.  For simplicity or brevity, if any of the Electronics authors care to undertake the task of combining all the permittivity equations with Coulomb's Law into one equation but keeping the same information, I would have no objection.

 * Under "Balance of Charge" section, there seems to be "loose" bullet statement about laser. If anybody wants to do something about that, go ahead.

On a low priority basis, I might someday copy some of the information in this module over to the first module of Electromagnetism in the "Modern Physics" book.

H Padleckas 19:12, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Electronics?
Should this be Electronics:Charge and Coulomb's Law, or is it being used by other books, etc. I don't want to put a TOC in if it is shared.

Name of this module
Before I learned about moving modules, I copied and pasted Electronics/Charge into this module and then added the section on Coulomb's Law. A better thing to have done would have been to move Electronics/Charge to this module when it was new, essentially renaming it. This way the history of Electronics/Charge would have been preserved, giving User:Wanderer credit for writing the first part on charge (up to but not including Quantity of Charge, which I wrote). This Electronics/Charge and Coulomb's Law module is being used only by the Electronics book. Wanderer has copied the Electronics/Charge information into Physics in English:Charge for his "Physics in English" book (Coulomb's Law section is not included). I also copied practically all of the Coulomb's Law section from this Electronics/Charge and Coulomb's Law module and the Electric Field section in the next module into a new module called Modern Physics:Coulomb's Law and the Electric Field for the Modern Physics book. I plan to leave things the way they are in this Electronics/Charge and Coulomb's Law module for a little while to get a feel for whether the Electronics regulars want to include the Electric Field section in here or not. When this issue is decided, I plan to move Electronics/Charge to new module, insert Electric Field from the next module if so decided, and call the new module either Electronics/Charge and Coulomb's Law or Electronics/Charge, Coulomb's Law, and Electric Field. After that the Electronics/Charge and Coulomb's Law module can then be deleted by administrators.

H Padleckas 14:09, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

when did everything get bolded?
i mean do we really need to bold every other word? - Omegatron

overcomplicated
this isn'y really usable to teach people about electronics as most teachers would teach ohms law first and resistor color band codes, then (after introducing a lot of components and circuits) introduce all of the theories on this page when it gets to the point that could be applied to their work, you're not going to remember it if you never use it. also there's no hands on experience in this entire book. Someone please organize this into a usable textbook form.

 * Another user has started a more hands-on text called LearnElectronics - Aya T E C 17:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this correct?
In the second paragraph of the first section it says "Atoms only gain and lose protons and electrons through fusion, fission, and radioactive decay." I don't want to change it myself, because I don't really know much about physics (that is why I am reading this), but I think it should say "Atoms only gain and lose protons and neutrons through fusion, fission, and radioactive decay." Earlier in that same paragraph it had said that atoms can lose electrons, which causes them to become ions.

 * You are correct. You could also change "radioactive decay" to "radioactive alpha-decay". Beta and gamma radiation do not affect the nucleus. - Aya T C 16:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * See the section right above this. - Omegatron 03:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

A Better use of your time...
would be to disregard this wikibook and check out http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/ I believe this book is far more accurate. But then again, who among you reading this discussion can remember where the local LIBRARY is, to go check out a few books (Understanding Physics vol. i, ii, iii by Isaac Asimov).

 * Of course, you can get the one I have; same text, but combined into one volume. But the publishers were only interested in pushing up Asimov's book count and making money without doing any work--so they just used the same plates, with the page numbers in volumes 2 and 3 renumbered.  But they had so little concern for the reader that they didn't update the zillions of internal links to those pages so that they told you where to go.  The books also have as many annoying little errors as the poorer books on Wikibooks.  Metric1000 11:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

probably incorrect
in the section on conductors it says: "This causes all the electrons in sphere 2 to travel away from sphere 1 to the far end of sphere 2." That can't be right.

I'm sure all are "pushed", but they can't all go to the other side. That would create an insanely strong electromagnetic force.

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can fix this.

Also I noticed towards the second half of the page the term "electric force" is used without much explanation. I wonder if some more specific term should be used (such as perhaps "electrostatic force") or if this is the correct term and it should be defined/explained.

Thank you. Best regards -- Jason Woofenden

Focus
This chapter is called Charge and Coulombs Law. So where is Q=It is there is the SI defininition. That is the most important point of the chapter. I have a cell/battery with 3600 Coulombs of charge or 1 Ampere hours so I can draw a current of 1 Ampere from it for an hour or a current of 0.1 A for 10 hours.--IKnowNothing 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

+ve and -ve
The "(+) and (-) Ions" section suddenly starts talking about +ve and -ve, what are these supposed to mean? Jeffrey.Rodriguez (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I believe it means positive and negative, but I find it (and the rest of that paragraph) very confusing. Perhaps relying less on text and a bit more on a diagram of some kind could clear that paragraph up. <IP_ADDRESS> (discuss) 16:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Photoelectric effect incorrect
I believe the explanation about photoelectric effect to be incorrect. What the text claims to be the photoelectric effect (absorbing an electron and emitting a photon) is the exact opposite of what the photoelectric effect is (absorbing photons and emitting electrons). The process of emitting a photon when an excited electron falls back is called fluorescence. See the wikipedia articles on fluorescence and the photoelectric effect. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (discuss) 17:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


text:
Talk:&Burn/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 08:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Despite our previous issues, I see you have returned to Wiki partially and I will gladly review this soon. --K. Peake 08:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox and lead
Kyle Peake, I am sorry about that, the source said it was pop but a user keeps changing it. I am going to change it to pop. If they change it again, I am going to admin. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cover art needs alt text
 * Remove formats from the infobox
 * Remove genre as that comes from a bad source
 * Target Interscope to Interscope Records
 * ❌ --K. Peake 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Wikilink Finneas O'Connell
 * ❌ since this should be under the first mention --K. Peake 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 * "was released as a single" → "was released for digital download and streaming as a single" with the appropriate targets
 * "via Darkroom and Interscope Records," → "through Darkroom and Interscope Records," with the appropriate wikilink
 * Remove the refs from the lead
 * "included in a December reissue of Don't Smile at Me." → "included on a reissue of Eilish's debut EP Don't Smile at Me in December of that year."
 * "Staples and Eilish's brother, Finneas O'Connell, co-wrote" → "Staples and Finneas O'Connell co-wrote"
 * "handling the production." → "handling production."
 * "A pop track with hip hop influenced instrumentation," → "A hip hop influenced track," with the target
 * "of Eilish's song" → "of Eilish's single"
 * The second para is too short currently; add in a sentence about the lyrics/meaning of the song to start it
 * ❌ --K. Peake 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 * After this, add a sentence about the critical reception, including noting what was praised
 * ❌ remove "Upon its release," and change "was praised" to "received positive reviews", while target music critics to Music journalism --K. Peake 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 * ""&Burn" has been awarded" → "The song has received"
 * "including a platinum by the" → "including being certified gold by the"
 * You should also mentioned the RIAA certification in the lead
 * ❌ since I meant you should mention both of the certifications since it is only two --K. Peake 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

✅

Background and release
✅
 * "made by Eilish with" → "made by Eilish to"
 * Wikilink god
 * "When Eilish and Finneas" → "When Eilish and her brother Finneas O'Connell"
 * "the track title was titled" → "it was under the title of"
 * "two separate songs. One being" → "two separate songs, with one being"
 * Add release year of "Watch" in brackets
 * [4][5][6][7][8] that is too many refs at the end of multiple sentences; you should have four maximum together and try to move these so they are after the information that they provide, since that is the most appropriate way of fixing the jumbling together of the refs
 * The single sentence should start a new para in this section
 * "was released as a standalone single" → "was released as a single"
 * "and streaming through" → "and streaming in various countries, through"
 * Add a ref at the end of this sentence; use the one that is currently only included in the lead
 * "included on the December edition of her" → "included on the December 2019 reissue of Eilish's"
 * Remove target on EP
 * "by American rapper Vince Staples and Finneas O'Connell, Eilish's brother and the track's sole producer." → "by Staples and O'Connell, the latter of which solely produced it."
 * This sentence and the following one should start the second para of the section, coming before the release info
 * "by the studio personnel, John Greenham" → "by studio personnel John Greenham"

Composition and lyrical interpretation

 * "as a hip hop-influenced alternative-trap track." → "as a hip hop-influenced track." with the target
 * ❌ the new prose is fine but hip hop should be targeted as I instructed here --K. Peake 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Changed to pop. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The alternative-trap genre is being proposed for removal since the source violates WP:SELFPUB
 * "velvety keys. She further mentions" → "velvety keys". She further mentioned that"
 * "a fiery revenge":" → "a fiery revenge"."
 * "Lips meet teeth..." these lyrics are not backed up the Billboard ref and the grammar is not correct in terms of flow and speech marks
 * ❌ why is this kept? --K. Peake 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 * "Vince Staples provides background vocals" → "Staples provides background vocals on the song"
 * "has been described" → "his appearance has been described"
 * "I try to wait for..." same issue as the previous quotation style of lyrics, with both grammar and OR
 * ❌ since you have only replaced with more unsourced lyrics, why? --K. Peake 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

✅
 * "David Renshaw of" → "David Renshaw from" plus this sentence should be the second sentence, directly before the Billboard one
 * "strike of a match and continues throughout the song as its main beat." → "strike of a match, which continues throughout as the main beat."

Reception
✅
 * Retitle to Reception and promotion
 * "at number 7 on their" → "at number seven on her"
 * "labeled the track" → "labeled the former"
 * "depicted the track" → "depicted the song"
 * "and saw the song as" → "and saw it as"
 * "explains "the end" → "explained that "the end"
 * "each other’s" → "each other's"
 * "from 'Don’t Smile at Me'"." → "from Don't Smile at Me"."
 * "and "bolder" as" → "and "bolder" than"
 * "but still" → "though commented that it still"
 * "Commercially, "Bitches Broken Hearts" did not enter any official charts. The track has been awarded a platinum certification in" → "Commercially, "&Burn" has been certified gold in"
 * Mention the gold certification by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
 * As I suggested retitling, the sole sentence of the live performance section should be here since a one sentence section is pointless

Live performance

 * "Eilish performed it" → "Eilish performed it live"

Credits and personnel
✅
 * Credits adapted from the liner notes of Don't Smile at Me. → Credits adapted from the liner notes of the Don't Smile at Me reissue.
 * The artists should be wikilinked
 * Use so there is the right space between credits and personnel

Charts

 * Year-end charts should not be a sub-section; you can keep as the sole table under charts now per MOS:TABLECAPTION if it has the caption "2019 year-end chart performance for "&Burn""
 * ❌ you did not remove the sub-section or title properly --K. Peake 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Certifications

 * ARIA certification was actually Gold
 * Canada certification was not for the song
 * Only the sales+streaming dagger should be cited at the bottom of the table
 * ❌ see Template:Certification entry --K. Peake 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, I do not know what you mean by this. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC) ✅

Release history

 * See MOS:TABLECAPTION
 * Format → Format(s)
 * Label → Label(s)
 * Target Digital download to Music download
 * Target streaming to Streaming media
 * Target Interscope to Interscope Records
 * ❌ you were supposed to keep it as titled Interscope but just change the target --K. Peake 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

✅

Final comments and verdict
Kyle Peake, thanks for the review all of the issues should be fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * as the article is a bit messy but can be fixed, do not feel to ask me about any proposed changes that are confusing though. --K. Peake 10:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the short response but some of the changes have not been implemented; should I point these out to you or will you look through again yourself? --K. Peake 20:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

user:Kyle Peake please point them out. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have planked the not done template on places where it is needed. --K. Peake 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

user:Kyle Peake I have done all, except one. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made the certification fix for you and done some copyediting elsewhere, though the lyrics sentence should be in the second para as the opening sentence and you still have not removed "Upon its release". --K. Peake 07:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have fixed it. Anything else that needs to be fixed? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did a slight amount of copy editing just now, but will gladly ✅ this! --K. Peake 06:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:&Burn/GA1