- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first proper attempt at an article beyond a Start-class and i would just like to see where this could be improved. This has been expanded a lot since its creation a month ago.
Thanks, Simply south (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
An interesting article that I found quite hard to review, as much of the article appeared to be about the railway line rather than the viaduct itself.
I will leave the WP:lead until almost the last.
- In view of what is currently in the lead, the Etymology is somewhat problematical. OK, it is about the name Dollis and that makes sense with the article title of 'Dollis Brook Viaduct'; however, the lead gives another four names, i.e. Dollis Road Viaduct, Dollis Viaduct, Mill Hill Viaduct and Finchley Viaduct, two of which don't include the term 'Dollis'. I'm tempted to leave the Etymology section as it is.
- Dollis Road Viaduct appears to be the official name as well as the Dollis Brook Viaduct. Mill Hill Viaduct is the next most commonly used and refers to the area in which the viaduct sits, which is basically on the boundary of Mill Hill and Finchley, which is also what\where the viaduct is referred to. Simply south (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- History -
- The first paragraph has some rather terse grammar. The first sentence is OK as an introduction, but I would suggest reworking the rest of the paragraph along the lines of ....
"The viaduct was built as part GNR's single-track Edgware, Highgate and London Railway line, from Finsbury Park to Edgware via Finchley and Mill Hill, by the contractor Smith, Knight & Co. The line, which was authorised by an Act of Parliament in 1862; and both the line and the viaduct came into use on 22 August 1867.[3]" Although built to carry two tracks, the viaduct initially carried only one.
- The first paragraph has some rather terse grammar. The first sentence is OK as an introduction, but I would suggest reworking the rest of the paragraph along the lines of ....
- I think the existing paragraph which uses 'viaduct' and the 'bridge' is referring to a single structure. I've also moved the first sentence from the following paragraph into this one.
- The second paragraph uses 'line' and 'branch'. For someone such as me who is not familiar with this section of railway, the terms line and branch are somewhat confusing.
- My presumption is that we are talking third (or fourth) rail electrification. A suitable link to Railway electrification in Great Britain using the # section link - but not this particular one would help the reader.
- Length, span and architecture -
- Your first (only) paragraph has some good technical information and references, which is great. However, the unasked question that you don't answer is: Why was a 60 foot high brick viaduct needed to cross a stream and a road? Could not one or a pair of a 10ft/12 ft /15ft high bridges, or an earth embankment with one or more small bridges, do the same job - for less cost?
- I think i am quibbling over a minor point but does it matter if there is no info on the length other than the arches? Simply south (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the question. Looking at the picture of the viaduct with the car underneath, I'm asking why it was 60ft high, a 10ft/12 ft /15ft high bridge would (I presume) allow a bus to pass underneath?Pyrotec (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- That was meant to say the length of the viaduct and i don't have an answer to those questions yet... Simply south (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the question. Looking at the picture of the viaduct with the car underneath, I'm asking why it was 60ft high, a 10ft/12 ft /15ft high bridge would (I presume) allow a bus to pass underneath?Pyrotec (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Around the viaduct -
- This reads as a bit of a 'dogs dinner'. The first part is about a long distance foot path; and this would perhaps read better as:
."The Dollis Valley Greenwalk, a long distance footpath between Moat Mount Open Space in Mill Hill and Hampstead Heath passes (under / alongside / between - whatever is appropriate). It is designed to link many green spaces and wildlife corridors along the way and is approximately 10 miles (16 km) long.[7][8]
- This reads as a bit of a 'dogs dinner'. The first part is about a long distance foot path; and this would perhaps read better as:
- The rest of the paragraph is about geology and one option is to move it to a separate paragraph within this section. However, the London clay / glacial beds may have influenced the construction of the viaduct, e.g. in respect of depth of foundations, etc; and if so should be discussed elsewhere.
... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk)21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)