Template:Did you know nominations/Severn Railway Bridge

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Severn Railway Bridge[edit]

(

)

Severn Railway Bridge after the 1960 accident

~~... that the Severn Railway Bridge (pictured after accident) was demolished after two barges hit it in 1960?~~

Reviewed: Lasse Bengtsson

Improved to Good Article status by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 08:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

@EEng: If you wish to add an alternative hook, please do so, but do not change my grammatical hook into your non-grammatical one. You are usually so careful about wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I merely asked (via my edit summary) what's ungrammatical (as you said) about "was demolished after two barges hit in 1960". In fact, how is it different at all vs. the original wording "was demolished after two barges collided with it in 1960", other than being a bit punchier? That's all. E Eng 07:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"Hit" is a transitive verb and in your hook, has no object. It may sound OK in American English but it sounds wrong in British English. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake. "Hit it in" -- my eye just jumped over it. Nothing to do with American English. You could have just fixed it without all this harrumphing. E Eng 07:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I preferred the word "collided", but as a general principle, I think you should add your version as an ALT rather than merely substituting it for the original with no comment visible on the template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I copyedit hooks all the time in place, and very, very seldom does anyone mind (though I frequently receive thanks and praise). Those interested are presumably watching and can push back if they dislike what I've done. In this case things were confused by my unfortunate loss of the it, but now that that's sorted out, we're back where we'd have been had I not messed up the suggested change in the first place i.e. feel free, if you wish, to revert the change with the edit summary, "I prefer the original wording". I won't mind -- it was just suggestion. E Eng 08:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That's OK, I don't in the least object to your hook in its present form. :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Good. I think hit has more punch, if you get my drift. BTW, and hate to say it, but the image is so small it's impossible to see the missing section. E Eng 17:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Full review needed now that hook is set. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Review by EdChem

Article was promoted to GA on 4 September 2016 and nominated on 8 September, so eligible on length and timeliness grounds.
Not previously at DYK or ITN.
References are suitably detailed (no bare urls) with inline citations. At least one reference per paragraph except for the lead – which is in compliance with DYK requirements – though to be honest I would expect more for a typical GA. This is only an impression / observation, there is no DYK issue here, and it may be fine given the relative lack of controversy in the material.
The GA reviewer (Ritchie333) raised the issue of the reliability of the source used for the hook, concluding: "I've checked it out and it seems to be professionally written and credits photographs correctly, and doesn't seem to contradict anything in the book sources. So in that respect, I think we can accept this." This source is cited in the article immediately after the hook facts, as required.
No dispute tags or warring issues in the history.
Article is neutral.
Hook is properly formatted and short enough. I note the discussion above and concur with the nominator that "barges hit it in ..." (emphasis added) is needed.
However, I am not sure that the hook is accurate. It can be read as stating both the demolition and the collision occurred in 1960, but the demolition began in 1967. Further, there was intention to repair the bridge until a subsequent collision led to the conclusion that it was not economically viable. I am not comfortable that the hook is not misleading, so have struck it.
A new hook might include (suggestions only, for consideration):
- the length of the bridge (which would also need a citation) might be added because it would illustrate that it was a very large bridge and make it hookier IMO.
- did the barges collide with each other and then with the bridge - it's not clear to me?
- not sure how to make clear the demolition decision, maybe note that the cost of repair was higher than the cost of demolition?
- the incidents of aircraft underflying the bridge could be the basis for a good ALT hook too.
Image is licensed CC-BY-SA 2.0, confirmed from source, so is available for main page use and is highly relevant to the now-struck hook. However, I concur with EEng that it would need to be cropped for the missing section to be clear at the size required.
Earwig copyvio check shows no issues, and no plagiarism noted.
QPQ requirement satisfied.

The only outstanding issue is the hook (and any consequent referencing issues for new proposals). EdChem (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@EdChem: Good point. If the image is used you can see its a long bridge. How about:

ALT1 ... that in 1960, two barges collided with the 4,162 feet (1,270 m) Severn Railway Bridge (pictured after accident) causing two bridge spans to fall into the river? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: All of the facts in ALT1 are in the source and in the article, and the proposed hook is clear. However, the statements in the article (that two spans fell and that the length is 4162 feet) are not supported by inline citations. These need to be added. Since they are both in the source, just add refs to satisfy this point. The second issue is that the image as it stands is unsuitable. We can either replace the image with a crop, or remove it totally. EdChem (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@EdChem: The length is cited inline in the second paragraph of "Construction". I have added a citation for the two spans. I personally am not into cropping images, so perhaps we should abandon the image for DYK, though it seems a pity! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I see the inline citation for the length, but it is offline and so I can't check it. However, the length is also in the ref used for the rest of the hook, so I am comfortable giving it the tick. Thanks for adding the two spans citation. I looked at cropped images and it does not show well, so unless you have another suggestion, I will give the tick for the hook but without the image. EdChem (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Following on, you could try File:Wrecks of the Arkendale H and Wastdale H.jpg, which is in the article, and add "wrecks pictured" to the hook. I don't know whether a queue-builder would use it, but it is an option if you want to consider it. EdChem (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@EdChem: I don't think the other image is main-page-worthy, so let's forget about having an image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, agreed. :) EdChem (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

ALT1 ready to go without the image. EdChem (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)