Talk:St Annes Pier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · count) 20:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "The pier was originally intended to be a sedate promenading venue for the resort's visitors, but further attractions were later added." It doesn't really make sense to talk about "further attractions" before we've talked about any attractions.

• Fixed. --BelovedFreak 17:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Steamer services to Blackpool and Liverpool were disrupted by changes made to the estuary channels." That's a bit vague. Changes caused by the construction of the pier?

Background

• "The company directors believed that a pier at St Anne's would have more favourable conditions for fishing and boating than those at neighbouring resorts." Not quite sure what that means. Would offer visitors better conditions for fishing and boating?

• Fixed (unless I've misunderstood). --BelovedFreak 17:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Construction

• "These changes meant that the pier was eventually left on dry land, ruining the resort's steamer trade." Not quite sure what "these changes" is referring to here. The dredging of the river channels? The construction of the jetty? Both?

• The dredging. I've reworded it slightly, does it make more sense? --BelovedFreak 17:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Attractions

• "... the developers of St Anne's were keen to attract a more refined market than the working-class excursionists that visited Blackpool". I realise that "excursionist" is a proper word, so you're obviously quite at liberty to keep it, but it looks really odd to me, added to which a little redundant; it's obvious that excursionists must be visiting somewhere. What about something like "the developers of St Anne's were keen to a attract a more refined market than Blackpool's working-class visitors"?

• I've gone with "than Blackpool's working-class excursionists", but if you still think it looks odd, I'm happy to lose "excursionist".--BelovedFreak 17:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• That seems fine to me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Is the pier still open today? What attractions does it offer now? I'm not sure in general if the article quite tells us enough about the structure of the pier. For instance, the English Heritage entry talks about the wooden deck being enclosed for three-quarters of its length and two hexagonal platforms beyond.

Thanks very much for the review. I'll get started on this today.--BelovedFreak 12:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm struggling a bit for time at the moment, but should be able to get back to finish this on Sunday, if not before.--BelovedFreak 09:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, there's no great rush. Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've addressed everything, see what you think. The pier is still open today, but I've found very little about it in recent sources. I have been down to the library there to see if there's anything; I've added the only little bit I could find.--BelovedFreak 14:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, we can close this now. Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 3 October 2011 (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.