Talk:Covering of the Senne

Images

Which map do you think is more useful; the current one at the left of the page, or the one I added a link to at the bottom? -Oreo Priest 15:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Factors to consider: 1) The one currently on the page is older than the Charleroi Canal, so will be somewhat inaccurate in that regard. 2) The one at the bottom does not show all of the Lesser Senne, though it does show some of it. -Oreo Priest 15:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the one in the link more because it seems more aesthetically pleasing.Zeus1234 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was thinking that too. I think I may try to get a cartographer to spiff it up, with labels and stuff. -Oreo Priest 17:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We should also grab some pictures of the city before and during the voûtement. -Oreo Priest 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've added an appropriate set of images. I think they still need to be rearranged somehow. Thoughts? -Oreo Priest 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the images is that the two last ones descend past the body of the article. I think that the way to solve this would be to get rid of the second and fourth prize photos. It seems a bit too much to show three photos of buildings in the competition. I think that showing the cat house is sufficient. Then the photo of the treatment plant can be moved into the body. Zeus1234 08:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article looks much better now. Do you agree? Zeus1234 08:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think it leaves something to be desired. Perhaps we should axe the photo of the Greater Sluice Gate, I'm not sure it adds much. I'm also thinking of adding [a city map from 1883 to provide context for what the city looks like now. Thoughts? -Oreo Priest 10:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

While the map is nice, I don't really think we need two maps in the same article, especially since you can't really see the difference between the older map and the new one. I do think however that there are the right number of images in the article now and it is not too crowded. I'll leave the photos up to you. Zeus1234 10:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dutch

Yes, in Dutch it is always referred to as de overwelving van de Zenne. It's a shame that the Dutch wikipedia suffers from a chronical lack of city-related articles (not only Brussels, but also Antwerp etc). Where does your interest in Brussels come from actually? Hooiwind 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This article

Could really use a modern before/after map - the one shown is not clear, nor is the written description. pschemp | talk 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it could. I've scoured the internet looking for one, but I came up with nothing. I know Suys' original proposal in the Brussels archives is exactly that, but I don't think I'd be able to access it. -Oreo Priest 19:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So make one. Or find someone who can. There are a ton of user created maps on wikipedia. pschemp | talk 14:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just asked User:MapMaster, so things should be underway shortly. -Oreo Priest 16:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've run in to technical difficulties involved with superimposing old maps on modern maps -- and I've not been on Wikipedia much during the past month. Am working on it. A 2nd draft is at Image:Image-Covering of the Senne-2nd draft.png. MapMaster (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

GA assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

1:

• Formatting of “January 1st, 1876” is incorrect, per WP:DATE
  • Fixed -Oreo Priest 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weasel words, e.g. “some opposition”
  • How is that a weasel word? -Oreo Priest 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The policy link was provided. The problem is easily remedied by being precise, e.g. "despite opposition from engineers and those fearing increased taxes". Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • That would make the introduction too long. The explanation is in the body. -Oreo Priest 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • You're welcome to determine an alternative wording; you may even merely remove the "some". The current phrasing needs to be changed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 22:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
          • It may seem like the opposition was unanimous if I remove it. -Oreo Priest 01:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Peacock words, e.g. “majestic, modern”, “remarkable example”, “important sewers”, “monumental fountain”, etc.
  • 'monumental' is an adjective meaning it is a monument, the others shall be fixed. -Oreo Priest 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • A monument is “lasting evidence, reminder, or example of someone or something notable or great” or “a memorial stone or a building erected in remembrance of a person or event”. [1] As fountain was never built, it is not “lasting”. Further, article states its erection would have been to “break the monotony of the boulevards”, not to remember a person or event or serve as an example of someone or something notable or great. “Monumental” is not appropriate here. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • It would have been a monument, but it's placement there as opposed to elsewhere was to break the monotony. -Oreo Priest 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Per the definitions, the article's current state does not support the classification of "monument". If you provide information regarding explicitly whom or what was to be commemorated, the phrasing may stay. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 22:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Demey makes it clear it was to be a monument, in fact using also the exact phrasing "monumental fountain". What to is not specified, nor is it important. -Oreo Priest 01:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Per WP:MOS, images should not sandwich text. The “Greater Sluice Gate” and “Beginning of construction” images don’t meaningfully contribute to the article and could be removed and the images reorganized to eliminate the sandwiching (The “Beginning of construction” is a good image, but is redundant to the “construction of the covering” photo. I’d actually replace the latter with the former.)
  • Sluice Gate image removed. I think, however, that two photos of the covering of the Senne, the subject of the article, clarifies things more. I also defend use of the second in its position, as it displays the two peripheral tunnels as well as the main course of the river, and is near text where that is explained.-Oreo Priest 15:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The removal suggestions were merely to accommodate appropriate formatting. If you can make the format work while retaining the image(s), more power to you. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Language is highly imprecise, e.g. “illogical … layout”, “fickle flow”, “powerless [gates]”, feeble [flow]”, “Brussels saw”, "governments … forced”. Layout is problematic per whose logic? Do you mean disorganized? Flows cannot be fickle or feeble – inconsistent and insufficient are more appropriate. Cities haven't eyes and, therefore, cannot see. Who forced the governments; did the populace rise upon with pitchforks and torches?
  • Illogical layout per Demey, cited as such. -Oreo Priest 22:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That will need to go in quotations. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • fickle flow changed to inconsistent
  • "even the sluice gates were powerless to regulate the flow of the river" Where is the problem in that sentence?
    • As identified, imprecise language is the problem. The language is overly theatrical and, consequently, reads as being silly. Wording such as "unable" would be appropriate. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Changed. -Oreo Priest 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Brussels saw does not imply Brussels has eyes. See here definition 2.
    • I didn't say incorrect, I said imprecise. A word such as "experienced" would be appropriate. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Passive voice removed.
• Inconsistencies, e.g. use of both “m” and “metre” – units should be either consistently abbreviated or spelled out. Inconsistent use of British English (e.g. “favour”, “metre”, etc.) and American English (e.g. “revitalization” and “characterized”); one or the other needs to be used.
  • This article is written using standard Canadian English. There are no inconsistencies in that regard. -Oreo Priest 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Canada typically utilizes what is referred to as "British English". The inconsistencies need to be remedied. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • No, it does not. My spell checker confirms the correct spelling of the words in this article. -Oreo Priest 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I never said anything was misspelled; this is not an issue of correct spelling. For example, both “utilise” and “utilize” are correct English spellings. They, however, are not properly used in the same written work. The issue is consistency, which spell checkers do not assess. If you can provide reliable sources explicitly indicating that British and American spellings may be acceptably used simultaneously in a Canadian English work, I will cede the issue. Otherwise, you need merely change two letters. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 22:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Canadian English -Oreo Priest 01:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Units made consistent. -Oreo Priest 22:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

2:

• Some prose appears to violate WP:NOR, e.g. “boulevards which are characteristic”, “rarely mentioned in tourist literature”, “making matters worse”, “the idea was ahead of its time”, etc. If this prose is not original research, citations will need to be provided.
  • Removed.
  • Cited
  • Already cited
  • Already cited -Oreo Priest 15:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

3:

• Construction section is unduly short, exacerbated that ca. half of the prose therein addresses opposition, not construction. Opposition should have an independent section and construction should receive appropriate weight.
  • The construction section addresses nearly all of the interesting information regarding the construction itself, the rest is not really particularly noteworthy. Other prose rearranged. -Oreo Priest 15:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Interest is subjective; I, for one, was interested in additional information. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I've re-added some.
• Article does not elaborate on “technical difficulties” experienced.
  • The technical difficulties were mostly geological. We can re-add the content, but it is not very interesting. -Oreo Priest 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Simple, short articulation of the difficulties is all that is needed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Article says church’s “style [was] no longer popular with the people and its presence considered embarrassing” but then says “The facade of the church was preserved by being disassembled and moved to serve as the façade for the St. Trinity Church”. Why was it preserved if it was unpopular and embarrassing? How would a façade be embarrassing, by the way?
  • The style of the facade was not "suitable" for the "modern" boulevard, but was still historical. Its presence detracted from the modernity of the boulevard, and was thus embarrassing. -Oreo Priest 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That will need to be articulated in the article. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Done. -Oreo Priest 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

4:

• Several words hint at WP:NPOV violations, e.g. “was only finished”, “should finally be capable”, “the monotony of the boulevards”, etc.
  • Completion 25 years later not seem very POV to emphasize that that's a long time. "Finally" in 2007 after centuries of water problems also seems NPOV to me. I can replace "monotony" with "uniformity" if you want, but it seems like a minor change. -Oreo Priest 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I apologize, I believe NOR is more appropriate for first two. The facts must be allowed to speak for themselves; personal commentary of "finally" and "only" is inappropriate. Monotonous will need to be removed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk
      • They aren't OR, they're fully self-evident adverbs. Monotony cited. -Oreo Priest 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Thus the reason we let the facts speak for themselves. 25 years is a long time for an individual, but insignificant for a city/society/country. If you'd rather call this a brevity issue, the concern may be moved to "1:' instead of here. Either way, the removal of those words is needed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 22:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
          • 25 years is a long time for ANY construction project. -Oreo Priest 01:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

6:

• Captions are not complete sentences and, therefore, should not end in periods.
• Caption of "Many unsanitary and unsafe wooden add-ons" is WP:NOR violation.
  • Cited. -Oreo Priest 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

General:

• If the aforementioned concerns can be promptly remedied (7 days), the article will pass. Please let me know if elaboration or assistance is needed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 19:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nominator has indicated that changes necessary to comply with GA criteria will not be made. Article is very close to a GA and only minor changes are needed for a successful nomination. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 02:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

I've listed the article for reassessment after the last reviewer insisted on some minort changes which would have been to the detriment of the article. -Oreo Priest 15:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The result was that the article was listed as a GA. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Downtown?"

What does 'downtown Brussels' mean? To me as an English speaker, that means the South of the town. But I think that the most interesting channeling was in the centre (or slightly East). Only the Gare du Midi/Zuidstation was built in the marshes to the south. And before you get there on Eurostar, you pass the excellent new sewerage works - which complete the story. 86.158.25.171 (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Downtown is commonly used in many countries to mean Central business district. Akld guy (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Covering of the Senne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928202256/http://www.badeaux.be/Publications/Pub1/Chapitre2/Chapitre2.html to http://www.badeaux.be/Publications/Pub1/Chapitre2/Chapitre2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"the City of Brussels' then-mayor"

I find this construction cumbersome. I modified it to "the mayor of the City of Brussels," but my modification was undone by @User:Jason Lagos under the pretext that the original is "more accurate & harmonised with other articles on the subject."

(You could arguably add "then" ("the then mayor..."), but it's obvious from the context that we're talking about the mayor at that time and not the mayor of any other time.)

I strongly disagree with the "more accurate" description, but I will obviously not enter an edit battle.

If it is indeed "harmonised with other articles on the subject" then I suggest those other articles be changed too.

Interestingly, the page linked to is called "List of mayors of the City of Brussels" and not "List of the City of Brussels' mayors."

Opinions? Páraic Maguire 11:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)