Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bennerley Viaduct/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 March 2023 [1].

Bennerley Viaduct[edit]

Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something a little bit different for me. Here we have a long-disused railway bridge in the English East Midlands, an area that was once a hive of industrial activity but there is little left to suggest it these days. The bridge was built as part of an attempt by a railway company to break its rival's monopoly on the area and carried trains for 90 years before it fell victim to the infamous Beeching Axe. After sitting neglected until last year, it is now in use again for pedestrians and cyclists. It has a certain significance to me as my grandmother lives a few miles away. I owe huge thanks to Dumelow for his help with the technical description, Peter I. Vardy for consulting Pevsner, and Wikimedia UK, who funded several of the books in the bibliography. I've largely rewritten the article, which at one point was as poorly maintained as its subject, and I think it meets the criteria but as always I'm grateful for any feedback. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Ilkeston_(Bennerley)_viaduct.png: on what basis is this CC licensed?
  • File:1916.05.03_L20_3_jpl.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None whatsoever for the first; it's clearly PD. Unable to find a DOD on the second and it's not that important anyway so I've removed it. Thanks Nikki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Background
  • "Dee Bridge disaster": you could probably use a comma after disaster, but I'll leave it to your discretion
    • Done.
  • "Among several branches, one left the main line just east of Awsworth": I'm not 100 per cent sure what you're saying here. Is it that "one of the company's many branches left the main line just east of Awsworth"?
    • Yes, I've reworded slightly. See what you think.
  • "Awsworth ... Erewash Valley ... Bennerley Ironworks ... Bennerley Viaduct ... Nottingham and Derby" Some form of map would be useful here, although the new skin means that (on my screen at least) the infobox is running past this section and only ends alongside the images from The Engineer. Not too much you can do about it really – the IB contains everything I would expect it too with nothing superfluous in there, so any more images in this part would just be clutter.
    • I found quite a helpful diagram but I'm not sure where I could put it.
      • That would work, but I agree that it's a bit difficult to know where to put it without causing too many other problems, sandwiching opposite the IB or cluttering the article elsewhere. The only section without an image is the History one, but it's the wrong image to put in there, so best leave out unless you get a brainwave! - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Samuel Abbott": Should it also be red-linked in the lead if you're doing so here? (I don't know about the guidelines on the matter, but consistency is something to bear in mind.
    • Probably.
Appreciation
  • Bennerly "more attractive" than Meldon? Tish and pish – they know nothing, this Biddle and Nock!
    • You want to tell that to one of the most famous railway historians ever? ;) Personally I think Meldon has a more dramatic setting but Bennerley is easier to appreciate from the valley floor
  • Just wondering whether the Appreciation section would be better after the History—or even Restoration—section? Worth a thought and I leave it entirely to your discretion.
    • Might see what anyone else thinks of this. The style is adapted from some of my war memorial articles and I think it fits nicely with the description so we know what's being appreciated, but I can see an argument for moving it further down.

That's my lot – an interesting article that I enjoyed very much. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, SchroCat! Glad you liked it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose. Happy with the changes - nice article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma[edit]

Looks interesting, and the viaduct is in bicycling distance for me, so I'll have to check this out in real life. Will review soonish. —Kusma (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: The word ashlar was new to me, which is probably because I am a foreigner. Worth linking? It is linked in the body.
  • Second paragraph with lots of short sentences starting with "Its" or "It" reads a bit choppy
  • Background: "keen to expand westwards to exploit the coal fields" this sounds almost as if the railway company wanted to do coal mining; do you mean "to take advantage of"?
  • "The Midland already occupied" is it normal to shorten the Midland Railway to just "Midland"? It is mildly confusing for something happening in the Midlands.
  • Description: "The design was apparently based on the Viaduc de Busseau" who finds this apparent? (I'm curious how the 1877 source describes this).
  • Appreciation: This section (which might work better at the end of the article) also has comparisons to similar viaducts in England. Do you need the {{clear}} at the end? (In my personal settings it would look better without).
  • Restoration: do we know why British Rail wanted to demolish it even after it became listed?
A note for Harry: The Rail Engineer article states that it was because children were risking their lives trespassing on it and notes that several people were injured in falls between its abandonment and restoration - Dumelow (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rivetted" usually with one t?

Just some minor points, overall it reads fine. Interesting that instead of trying to figure out more about the ground, they just built a special type of bridge. —Kusma (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kusma, I really appreciate your input. I hope you manage to ride to it soon, it's well worth a look. I believe I've addressed everything you mentioned, except that "Midland" is the almost universal abbreviation for the Midland Railway. I've also moved the appreciation section down (courtesy ping for SchroCat, who also suggested it). Let me know if anything else stands out to you. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good changes, I think there is only the question of the connection to the French viaduct left. And one of the photos (File:Bennerley Viaduct from below 04.jpg) makes me slightly nauseous: is it possible to rotate it a bit? Or do I have to go there myself to see if I can do a straight version? —Kusma (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: I've attributed that now. There's no reason to doubt it, it's just only mentioned in one source, which doesn't specify where the information came from. Feel free to edit the photo if you can, or to take a better one (though try standing where I was stood and you'll see the height and length of the viaduct make it difficult not to rotate the camera!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is better. Interestingly enough, the French article mentions that the Crumlin Viaduct was the first of this type, but five minutes of skim-reading what I think is the source for that statement did not show a strong connection there either. I tried some crop&rotate with GIMP, but I'm not yet satisfied enough to upload them; maybe I'll check with someone more capable in these matters and try again. Anyway, happy to support on prose/content. —Kusma (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "It was once part of a chain of bridges and embankments carrying the railway across the valley". Is the total length of these known?
    • Yes, added.
  • "Plans to demolish the viaduct". Is it known when these were formulated?
    • There was more than one set of plans and I didn't want to bog the lead down with a series of failed proposals. Happy to meet you in the middle if you think it's important.
  • "It opened to the public as part of a cycling and walking route in 2022." Is the month known?
    • Added.
  • "The crossing of the River Erewash and its wide, flat valley required a bespoke solution." Could we have some background on railways in the area and the reasons behind the construction of this line? Moving much of the second and third paragraphs up may address much of this. A lot seems to read in reverse chronological order.
    • I've rearranged it a bit. See what you think. They started as logically separate paragraphs but they started to bleed into each other as the article developed.
  • "The valley is". Is, was or both?
    • I think both is reasonable. It is boggy, it is largely flat; that's still true today. It was approached on embankments but those are gone now.
  • "are poorly mapped". Similarly.
    • I'll give you that. They probably still are but nobody has tried to build anything like this since and modern technology would probably make things easier.
  • "The ground would not have been able to support a conventional brick or masonry structure." Perhaps the reason could be given in this sentence rather than the next?
    • I've replaced the colon with an emdash; does that help?
  • "to take advantage of the coal fields". In what respect?
    • I'm not sure how I can answer this without an overly simplistic answer like "to carry coal from the coalfields"; can you think of a better way of putting it?
Not a deal breaker, but perhaps 'to access the coal fields'?
I like that. Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the GNR's East Midlands routes". Should there be an apostrophe in there?
    • Besides the one on "GNR's"? I don't think so.
  • "According to Graeme Bickerdike in the magazine Rail Engineer". When was Bickerdike writing?
    • Added.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gog, I was hoping you might get time to review this one; must be practically on your doorstep! It's getting late but I'll have a look at these tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. How could I resist? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lovely Description section. :-)
  • "is Ilkeston town centre to the south." How far to the south?
    • Added. I walked it in a little over half an hour.
  • What is the relevance to this article of the four middle See also links?
    • It features on all those lists. Its listed status and location are discussed in the text; these are the lists of listed buildings in its location (there are four because it's listed twice, once for Nottinghamshire and once for Derbyshire).
Yes. But that is not what See also is for. (That sort oif thing is covered by categories.) A reader who clicked on any of those four would discover no new information on the subject of this article.
Actually, I'd argue that's exactly what see also is for. I'm pretty sure there's a guideline somewhere that says if a list's members are blue links, the list should be linked from the members' articles. I could be imagining that (I can't find it) but it's near-universal practice—see every single one of my war memorial FAs or my previous two bridge FAs or (I'd be willing to bet) just about every blue-linked item on any of those four lists. And List of lattice girder bridges in the United Kingdom doesn't tell the reader anything more about Bennerley Viaduct; it's just a list similar bridges in the same country. Most "see also"s on most articles won't tell you any more about the subject but rather direct you to articles on similar or related subjects. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the restorations of the viaduct." Is the s a typo?
    • Fixed.
  • Why "Derby (Friargate) station" and not 'Derby (Friargate) Station'? Per the MoS - "Geographical or place names are the nouns used to refer to specific places and geographic features. These are treated like other proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements".
    • Because why would our style guides agree with each other? ;) Stations are covered by WP:NCUKSTATION and some people have really strong feeling about it!
Indeed. One day I'll ask them why their feelings should mean that they can ignore the MoS. But not today.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank a lot, Gog, I really appreciate your thoughts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. You must be near unique Harry. One issue left to fight over. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Some details in the lead, such as the 'Iron Giant' moniker, don't appear to be cited in the body
  • What makes Cossons a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN32 is misformatted
  • No citations to McFetrich
  • FNs12 and and 14 are to the same source but are formatted differently. In general what is italicized and what is not seems inconsistent
  • FN15 is missing authors. Ditto FN29, check throughout
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, thanks very much for taking a look. Again! Neil Cossons is apparently a notable historian but regardless the book is by a reputable publisher so should be usable. I try to italicise works but not publishers, though some sources (like BBC News and Victorian Web) give me a headache. Everything else, I believe, I've addressed. Thanks again, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, just checking if all fine here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bennerley_Viaduct/archive1&oldid=1146692637"