Talk:New Brighton Pier, Wallasey/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Bungle (talk · contribs) 18:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 09:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soon. Tim riley talk 09:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Review

Looking good. A few minor points:

• "Liverpool's working-class visitors" are hyphenated in the lead but not in the main text. I suggest a hyphen for each occurrence.

The article linked in the main text is without the hyphen, so rather than pipe this, I have just removed it from lead occurrence. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• "the tallest building in England at that time" – could do with a citation (Easdown, p. 23 will do, I see).

This is already cited at the end of the paragraph, page 16. I double checked again to ensure p16 verifies this, which it does. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• "engineers declared the pier dangerous due to severe corrosion" – "due to", here and later: in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in formal BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

I have thought about this, and while amending each instance would not be too overly tedious, I find it's entirely acceptable even in prose written to conform to BrE. I'd understand entirely if we were looking at AmE specific phrases, or spelling variations. You may change the instances if you consider it a matter of concern, although I'm not sure it's a GA red-line matter? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

None of my suggestions were red-line matters. I described them as minor and so they are. It isn't for a reviewer to say "I'd write it like this and so must you". Tim riley talk 10:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps poor phrasing on my part. I guess I meant to say that I hoped you did not consider it a make-or-break matter (which you clarify is not the case). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Messrs Lodge Pritchard & Company" – very unusual to have both "Messrs" and "& Company" in a firm's title – is the "Messrs" used in a reliable source?

It is written literatim according to the book source. I felt this was the safest approach, although could be reasses if another source references it differently? When searching for a suitable source for Gadsby, I came across this clipping which refers to a "Messrs Robert Robert and Co.", which also has Messrs and Co/Company in the title reference. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

An employee of the Coutts bank told me years ago that his employers, Messrs Coutts and Co, were unique in using both the Messrs and the Co, but perhaps he was mistaken, and in any case it really isn't a matter of importance. Tim riley talk 10:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• "the Egremont ferry service was taken over by The Coulborns in May 1848" – not clear why "The Coulborns" are italicised or have a capital T. The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser, 12 December 1848 refers to "Mr. Coulborn, the lessee of the Egremont ferry".

I agree, unsure why this was written like that, so i'll amend. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• "significantly more than the initial £9,250 (equivalent to £907,900 in 2019) estimate" – not sure about the adverb – the cost was vastly greater than the estimate, certainly, but "significantly"? What did it signify?

Fair enough, I have amended to "much greater", but open to better alternatives. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Tim riley talk 10:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Famous divers such as Tommy Burns and Ted Heaton were known to dive off the pier" – this is Hamlet without the prince surely? What about the one-legged Frank Gadsby? – "Don't forget the diver, sir, don't forget the diver. Every penny makes the water warmer!" (See It's That Man Again#The Diver)

As noted below, I created Gadsby's article after these references were added, as I wasn't as aware of him at the time as I have become since. I agree he should have a mention. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency there. All so minor that I don't propose to put the review formally on hold (unless you would prefer me to do so). Over to you. Tim riley talk 10:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Tim riley, many thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'm encouraged that you were only able to propose a small amount of improvement suggestions, although perhaps point 3 is outside the scope of concern at this level.

Regarding your last point, I had not yet created Frank Gadsby's article when I wrote that prose, yet I had created Tommy Burns (diver) and Ted Heaton, thus I was not as aware of him as the other two at this point. That said, I think that quote has a place in his article too!

I'll make necessary improvements over the next days, thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: alt text would be good (to help people who use screen readers) but is not compulsory

   Well illustrated

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Good work. I think I was last on this pier in about 1968 and I much enjoyed revisiting it here. Very pleased to pass it for GAN. Tim riley talk 10:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and being of the view this meets the GA criteria. It's also nice that you have memories of the pier too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)