Talk:Plaistow tube station/GA1

Summary

• Please note that you are completely fine to disagree with my suggestions and I wouldn't fail the GAN for it. I like to suggest anything I think would benefit the article.
• The boring stuff:

You have 85.9% authorship so it's in your right to nominate the article

I note the same problem with [fieldtripper.com/c/6a91yw66zlA fieldtripper.com/c/6a91yw66zlA] as with the Bromley-by-Bow review, and am once again making the assumption that it is they who copied Wikipedia

Apart from the aforementioned Earwig's Copyvio Detector returns maximum 1.0%

Nominator has a history of 16 GAs and only good work on Wikipedia, so I have no concerns about giving benefit of the doubt to unverifiable sources

No edit wars or similar affecting the article.

Oldid 1347517032 used.

• On hold just a few minor comments as usual. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 17:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Lede

(no comments)

History

• "via the Bow–Bromley curve" – the wording suggests you've already introduced it. I would say "via a curve between Bow and Bromley". It seems from CartoMetro that this was between the modern Bow Church and Bromley-by-Bow; is this worth adding to this article or to Bromley-by-Bow's?
• "with a daily all-day service at Upton Park" – is this not supposed to be Plaistow?  Done

Design

(no comments)

Location

• Consider one long paragraph rather than two short.  Done

Services

• Is the bay platform used for timetabled services?  Done Added a note.

Images

• Both images are correctly licensed.
• I would consider a different infobox image such as File:Plaistow station building.JPG or File:Plaistow Underground Station - geograph.org.uk - 1471302.jpg as the current one hides it behind some (albeit nice) flowers. If you ever get the opportunity this may be a good one to retake yourself. Not a massive issue in terms of the GAN though.  Not done But agree a better image should taken to replace it.
• Consider alt text for the second image  Done

Sources

• "Kay, Peter (2010). The London, Tilbury & Southend Railway: A History of the Company and Line Volume 3." is unused so can be removed  Done
• I used multiples of seven and six greater than twenty: 21, 24, 28, 30, 35, 36
  • 21: "Horne 2006" – benefit of the doubt
  • 24: "Horne 2006" – benefit of the doubt
  • 28: "The Upminster Line" – verified
  • 30: "Review of the New Sub-Surface Railway Service Pattern Introduced on 13 December 2009" – verified; add page 2. The fact that the extension was due to Crossrail using the space at Whitechapel rather than perceived demand is interesting and could be an efn on the articles for this section of line if you want. Partly done
  • 35: "Locally Listed Buildings in Newham" – verified; add page 19  Done
  • 36: "London Underground: Full list of Tube stations set to get step-free access" – verified

@JacobTheRox:: Thanks for another great review. I think I've address all the points. MRSC (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Pass all comments have been responded to – congrats on your latest GA. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)