Talk:Blackwall Tunnel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 11:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through it, leaving the lead until last. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

General

• There are five dead links and several suspicious ones. Suggest using the "external links" option on the menu to track them down. At least some are available on the Wayback Machine. I haven't checked them all yet.

All 404s have been replaced, either by alternative sources, or rewording the section in question.

Old tunnel

• "It was constructed using tunnelling shield and compressed air techniques; using the Greathead shield (named after its inventor, James Henry Greathead)." A semicolon separates two closely related independent clauses. The second is not independent. How about "It was constructed using compressed air techniques and a Greathead tunnelling shield, named after its inventor, James Henry Greathead." or somesuch.

Done

• "The tunnel was officially opened by the Prince of Wales on 22 May 1897 at a total cost of £1,400,000..." reads like the opening cost £1.4 million, rather than the tunnel. I would swap this sentence round, so the cost and the lives lost goes with the 800 men of the previous sentence, and the opening goes at the end.

Reworded this section

New tunnel

• "In 1960, Richard Marsh complained that traffic could spend 30 - 45 minutes..." Richard Marsh needs some context. So "... MP for Greenwich..." so we know why his opinion matters in this case (and I would also use " 30 to 45 " rather than the dash).

Done

• I am not sure about Richard Marsh's comments of 1960 preceding the obtaining of an Act of Parliament in 1938. I might be better if chronological, or some expansion to group it more firmly with John Mills's comment.

Reorganised the sentences in this paragraph

• "construction work was abandoned due to the outbreak of World War II" Abandoned suggests that is was started but then stopped, whereas ref 7 says that no work was carried out before WW2. Try rewording.

Rephrased as "but work did not start due to the outbreak"

• "The northern pair stands at Blackwall, while the southern are now contained within the O2 Arena" sounds wrong. I would suggest "the southern pair are...", and presumably they are in the grounds of the O2 Arena. There is no ref so I cannot check this.
• O2 is described inconsistently. So "The O2" in the lead and the "O2 Arena" here. They ought to be consistent, so readers know they refer to the same feature.

I've removed this sentence. I assumed it was implicitly obvious from looking at a map, but it turns out it's not. If I find a source that explains why the precise location in relation to the tunnel is significant, I can revisit this.

• "In April 1986, the tunnels became part of the UK trunk road network. It was detrunked..." Tunnel needs to be singular, or use "They were detrunked" so that the nouns match up.

I've gone with singular. All sources talk about "the Blackwall tunnel" as a singular entity. Individual tunnels are often described as "old bore" "new bore", "third bore"

Provisional IRA bombing

• "This resulted in a second explosion approximately an hour later." is not supported by the sources. They say that a second gas holder caught fire nearly an hour later, but there is no mention of it exploding. Add a little more context to clarify.

Yes, my fault - the source only says "fire", not "explosion". I have reworded appropriately. There are some other blog sources discussing the bomb, but they're not reliable.

Nearest alternative crossings

• All units have been metric (imperial) thus far, but switch to imperial (metric) in this section. They should be consistent throughout the article.

According to the Manual of Style's guidelines on units of measurement, non-science UK related articles use measurements mostly in metric, with some exceptions. Miles as a distance is one, feet/inches is only used with regard to personal height. This also ties in with what I see in the real world - all engineering projects today are designed and expressed in metric, but road signs still use miles.

• "on Academy Road when approaching from the south side of the river, Lodge Avenue and Limehouse from the North." Suggest " , and on Lodge Avenue..." so it is grammatical.

I've replaced this with "Variable message signs (VMS) near the tunnel inform drivers if the ferry is available." which expresses the same fact in a much simpler manner

• "(close to the DLR tunnel)" DLR needs expanding, or previous Docklands Light Railway needs a (DLR) after it.

Changed this to "close to Island Gardens and Cutty Sark stations" which is more relevant to a pedestrian.

• "The TfL 108 (Stratford-Lewisham) route" Suggest "The TfL 108 (Stratford-Lewisham) bus route", so it is more obvious what is being described.

I've taken out the alias and wikilinked the article London Buses route 108 directly

Traffic management

• "the 1.7 kilometres (1.1 mi) approach" needs an adj=on switch to give "the 1.7-kilometre (1.1 mi) approach"

Done

• "Former Mayor Ken Livingstone stated that..." I think this needs a year (at least) in the text, to give it context.

The source is a dead link. I have replaced it with another source from November 2007 that states the same facts, but with a different quotation.

• VOSA could do with expanding to its full title, and a phrase on why such action is appropriate (ie what VOSA do) so readers keep reading, rather than following the link.

Done

Maintenance and closures

• "A major refurbishment of the northbound tunnel is ongoing..." Such information dates very quickly. I suggest "...was ongoing in 2012 (2013? - link is dead)"

Found a working source and added "In 2010", removing present tense.

• "The upgrade was successfully carried out..." Could do with some details of what the upgrade was, or introducing it in the previous sentence if details are not known. "The upgrade" suggests we already know what it is, but we don't.

Replaced with "The tunnel was only closed six full weekends instead of the planned ten,"

• "The tunnel also suffers regular problems with over-height vehicles and lack of fuel" needs rewording. Presumably it is not the tunnel that suffers from lack of fuel, but vehicles using it. Clarify.

I've reworded this - I think the original intention was to avoid using the word "vehicles" twice in quick succession

• "Because the Limehouse Link tunnel and the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge were also closed". Suggest Limehouse Link tunnel needs a bit of context, since it is not mentioned in the alternative crossings, and it sounds like it ought to be at first reading, and the QE2 bridge could at least mention its geographical location, since it is called Dartford Crossing in a previous section.

I've had a go at re-wording this. The Limehouse Link tunnel is only relevant in the context of it being closed - it's doesn't cross the Thames so it can't really be considered an alternative crossing.

• "In order to combat this, an LED noticeboard was set up" Is combat right? While it might inform users, it is not obvious how this reduces the number of times the tunnel is closed.

Replaced with "To try and prevent closures of this nature"

Future

• "linking Thamesmead and Beckton" Both need wikilinking, and it would be helpful to have some geography. Is it east or west of the tunnel, how far away, etc.

I've replaced this with "between the Woolwich Ferry and the Dartford Crossing", which is more relevant than the nearest towns the crossing happened to run between. No wikilinking is needed here, as the two crossings are mentioned earlier.

• "cancelled by Boris Johnson in 2008" again needs context, so we understand why an individual could do this.

Added "when he replaced Livingstone as mayor".

• "to alleviate traffic from the tunnels" doesn't quite make sense. Suggest "to reduce traffic volumes using the tunnel" or somesuch.

Replaced with "Other schemes proposed by TfL that would allow tunnel traffic to cross the Thames elsewhere". A 20mph speed limit and a ban on HGVs would also reduce traffic volumes, but that's not what this paragraph is talking about.

I will be checking the refs next. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick and diligent review. I've addressed all the actions listed here and await for further feedback. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

References

I have now checked most of the references, and they have generally been used well, and adequately support the text as written. However, there are a few issues.

• Ref 10 (Section of the Blackwall Tunnel). This is used to support 600 homes being demolished, but says that 600 people were rehoused. Given known occupancy in the 1890s, this would suggest a lot less than 600 homes.

Reworded

• Ref 12 (Urban Design: Blackwall Tunnel) I get a timeout error.

The source appears to be down at the moment - Google's cache has a text copy of the information. I have swapped this to a wayback machine archive copy

• Ref 13 (TfL urges drivers to check...) This gives a page not found (but not a 404 error).

Looks like someone at TfL has renamed a few links - should work now.

• Ref 21 (New Blackwall Tunnel Ventilation Towers). This shows a selection of pictures, none of which seem to be relevent.

Removed - the information is cited by other sources. Also relevant this area, Greater London Council was mentioned in full twice, I've changed the first mention to "Greater London Council (GLC)" and the second to just "GLC", which means the prose can be simplified

• Ref 38 (Update on East London Crossings Review). This is a 40-page pdf and so needs page numbers.

Added page number

• Ref 40 (Blackwall Tunnel Tidal Flow Options Study) Page not found.

The source seems to be a back door attempt to link a POV pushing blog - I've replaced the source with the actual report and rewritten this section to be more partisan in tone.

• Ref 42 - I have fixed the missing title prompt.

Thanks

• External links - the Terry Farrell link is used as a ref, so does not need to be in this section (but does not appear to work either - see above)

I think the site has been redesigned - it now doesn't appear to have anything before 1985. Have to remove it for the minute - shame, as there's a lot of interesting architecture pictures on it, but if it's not relevant to the Blackwall Tunnel anymore, it doesn't belong here

Lead

Generally introduces the article and summarises its main content. A couple of minor issues.

• It should mention that it is in England, for the benefit of international audiences.

Done.

• "The tunnel originally opened as a single bore in 1897 by the then Prince of Wales" I think this should be "The tunnel was originally..." so that "by the then Prince of Wales" makes sense.

Done

• "Solutions to the traffic flow problems..." Since none of them have been built, perhaps "Suggested solutions..." or somesuch would be helpful.

Replaced with "Proposals to solve the traffic problems"

• "northbound tunnel has a 4.0 metres (13.1 ft) height limit" Again needs an adj=on switch.

Done

The formal bit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments above

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just a few small items to sort out. Since you dealt with the last lot so swiftly, I will not bother to put it on hold yet. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bob. I think everything's been actioned now, if you want to give things another check. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have read it through again, and am happy that all issues raised have been addressed. Well done on an interesting and informative article, which I can confirm now meets the good article criteria. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)