Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wandsworth Bridge/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:39, 25 August 2010 [1].

---

Wandsworth Bridge

Wandsworth Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Wandsworth Bridge/archive1

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 19:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Haven't had one of these for a while… Wandsworth Bridge is a distinctly unlovely piece of wartime functionalist design which replaced an equally unlovely piece of 19th-century cost-cutting design. While it doesn't have the thousand-years-of-history of its cousins at London Bridge and Kingston Bridge, or the iconic design of Tower Bridge or Albert Bridge, it carries more traffic than any two of them put together. This is relatively short compared to the other London bridge articles (no important historic events or depictions in art and literature for this one), but says as much as there is to say about a structure that's of vital importance, but largely ignored even by those who use it every day. – iridescent 19:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I did the GA review and I am pleased to support. Whilst it is short in length, I believe that it is thorough and complete.--DavidCane (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. Just a couple of things:

• I can't quite make sense of this: "While nearby Battersea Railway Bridge had opened in 1863, as the population of the area grew and the built-up area of London expanded into the area in the 19th century pressure grew from local residents and businesses for a road bridge to be built." "While" and "had opened" just don't work together.

• "... in the expectation that the western terminus of the Hammersmith and City Railway would shortly be built on the north bank, generating large numbers of people needing to cross the river at this point." People can't be "generated" can they?

Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• The point that's trying to make is: "There was already a bridge there, but it only served trains passing through the area, as there weren't many people who lived in the vicinity and thus not enough traffic to warrant a road crossing. As the area started to fill with people, the lack of a road crossing became inconvenient enough for people to want to address it." It's an important point, in that people could already get from point a to point b, but only by using the train. I can't think of an easier way to reword it—not sure if you have any thoughts.
• People can't be generated, but "people wanting to cross the river" can. The usual phrasing, "passenger demand", doesn't work here, as they were by-and-large crossing on foot and bicycles, not as "passengers". "Led to a sharp increase in the number of people wanting to cross the river", perhaps? – iridescent 22:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've made a couple of changes, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Prose quickie: "the built-up area of London expanded into the area"? I think that can be improved. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• That was pretty ugly, probably my fault. See what you think now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think this is a very good example of the kind of article that ought not to be cluttering up FAC for too long. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support with a few quick comments:

• Pierson or Peirson Frank?

• Pierson—fixed. – iridescent 19:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the lead is an almost complete duplicate of a sentence later in the article

• Agree, but there's no obvious way to reword it. It's significant enough to warrant mentioning in the lead, but as a quotation it can't be easily rewritten. – iridescent 19:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I assume all publishers are located in the UK? It might be worth saying so explicitly for those locations that are less well-known outside the UK. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree on that; it's never been Wikipedia practice to give the country of publication except where there's a reasonable possibility of confusion (London, Ontario and the like). – iridescent 19:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I'm close to supporting this, but there's some awkward wording which needs to be fixed:
  • "In 1867 the formerly independent Hammersmith and City Railway was absorbed by the Metropolitan Railway and the Great Western Railway, and was worked from then on by Metropolitan Railway trains." - what's meant by 'worked from then on' is unclear
    • Not sure what's unclear—if you can suggest a way to reword it to avoid the confusion, please do. "Worked by" is standard terminology for the company which operates the trains, buses etc on a route as opposed to the company which owns the route. (The Channel Tunnel is owned by Eurotunnel and worked by Eurostar, for instance.) The Hammersmith & City was an independent company; it was taken over by a consortium of the Metropolitan and the Great Western; all the services on it were operated by the Metropolitan from then on. – iridescent 19:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • "Used" rather than 'worked by' perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • "Operated by" seems like the obvious choice, unless I'm missing something. Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• • "Although the Commission expressed concern that it may prove too narrow, the design was approved." - the tense here is confusing Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Again, not sure of an obvious way to reword that. They were concerned about what would happen in what was then the future; they made the decision in what is now the past. – iridescent 19:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't "might prove" be correct, then? Waltham, The Duke of 19:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Malleus has reworded it in a way which should fix it. – iridescent 19:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support My above comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image Check: all images check out as Creative Commons or public domain. Imzadi 1979 → 06:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - No problems here. Tom (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support my "local" bridge, so I thought I'd take a peek at the article: all looks good. A neat piece of work which, given the article's editing history, is no surprise. Bencherlite^Talk 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Can the "Recent developments" section be re-named to something more in keeping with WP:MOSDATE#Precise language? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.