Talk:Titan Clydebank/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I will be happy to take on this GA review after seeing a request by the nominator at the WikiCup talk page. I will start the review in the next day or two. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. James^x12345 12:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

First reading

My impression on reading this is of a well written article that is a bit underweight on information on the crane itself and a bit overweight on some other information. There are quite a lot of dimensions and capacities but little description of the crane, whereas there is much about the Clydebank Blitz and we find out about the casualties etc. and then we have the bald statement that the Titan crane was undamaged.

• "The yard at Clydebank was created in 1871 after operations were moved by ..." - perhaps you should explain at the start what sort of a yard and what sort of operations you are talking about.
• "... with a 160 tonnes (160 long tons; 180 short tons) capacity at a radius of 85 feet (26 m)." - It would be helpful if these technical details could be fleshed out a bit. OK, it can lift 160 tonnes, but what does the radius refer to?
• "In the late 1960s, the yard was incorporated into Upper Clyde Shipbuilders (UCS), which collapsed in 1971" - Perhaps the word "collapsed" is not ideal here because it immediately gave me an image of a crane crashing to the ground!
• "The crane fell into disuse in 1980s, and in intervening period of neglect vandalism to the wheelhouse and corrosion to the structure had taken place." - This sentence is a bit garbled.
• "It was awarded the 2012 Engineering Heritage Award" - This section should not start with the word "It" at the beginning of the paragraph.
• The lead is meant to summarize the article. It currently includes some information not present in the body of the text, and omits other information that should be included in the lead.
• The article seems to assume that the reader knows exactly what a cantilever crane is, how it is constructed, what it is made of, how it operates and what it is used for. I think the article should include a bit of background information of this sort. The article Fairbairn steam crane, for example, might give you some ideas. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few changes, mainly to flesh out the lead and also to make it more "reader friendly." Technical details about the crane are quite scarce, but most of the key facts are there. I've also added quite a bit about its use. James^x12345 20:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That is looking better. I will have another look to make sure all the criteria are filled. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Criteria

• 1a The article is sufficiently well written to meet the GA criteria.
• 1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines as to lead, layout etc.
• 2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations for all contentious statements. #3 is currently a dead link
• 2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
• 3a&b The coverage is broad enough following the addition of new material during this review.
• 4 The article is neutral.
• 5 The article has been expanded since March 21st by the nominator and is stable.
• 6 The images are appropriately licensed.
• 7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
• Overall assessment - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Dead ref removed. James^x12345 15:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)