Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wolverton 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 May 2024 [1].

Wolverton Viaduct

[edit]
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverton Viaduct is (and this will shock you!) a viaduct. Near (wait for it!) Wolverton. In Buckinghamshire, south-central England. It was built in the 1830s and still carries trains today. Its designer was the famous Robert Stephenson and it is the largest viaduct on his pioneering railway from London to Birmingham (and probably the only one with FA potential). Stephenson was a conservative engineer and Wolverton is not much compared to some that followed, whether by Stephenson or other engineers. These days it would be made with machines and pre-cast concrete but a six-arch, 50ft-high bridge over a major river in what was then open countryside would have been a sight to behold in an era when everything still had to be done by manual labour.

If successful, this will be my fortieth FA, my fourth on a bridge, second on a railway bridge (after Bennerley Viaduct) and first on an operational one! As you'll see from the bibliography, I've scoured every source I can find and I think the article now says just about everything it's possible to say about this viaduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

A marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the IB you have a mix of ft and feet - either are fine, but it should be one of them only
  • "part of the Milton Keynes": the MK?
  • "army of navvies" fails WP:IDIOM
  • "Soil mechanics were not well understood in the 1830s" – would this sentence not be better with the History, where the effect and duration of the slips are better described?
  • A suggestion only, but wouldn't the history section be better a little higher up the article – at least above the Appreciation?

That's my lot, and I hope they help. Nice article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Schro, I think I've got all those. Looking back at Bennerley, I put the history above the appreciation and I think you're right that it works better that way. Thanks very much for taking a look! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]
  • . Modern engineers and railway historians observed that Wolverton Viaduct is not as innovative or impressive: per MOS:SAID, I'm uncomfortable with the objective "observed" being used for subjective qualities like "innovative" and "impressive". Suggest "judged", "believed" or indeed "said". On a matter of style/taste, as these are modern (and so the last word in the conversation we've set up, I'd use the perfect tense: have judged etc.
    • Done.
  • Is "blue brick" the same as Staffordshire blue brick?
    • Not necessarily. Staffordshire blue brick is more common in the West Midlands than Buckinghamshire and didn't become popular elsewhere until the railways were more established. If I had to guess, I would say these bricks probably came from London or possibly even up the Ouse. I've heard of viaducts being built from bricks made on-site but none of the sources suggest that happened here.
  • As compound modifiers, hyphenate blue-brick extension and red-brick original.
    • How embarrassing! That's the sort of thing I normally point out in FACs.
  • Masts for overhead electrification were added in the 1950s but otherwise the bridge is little changed since it was built.: amend extended for built? Otherwise, I"m not sure that being wider and with an un-bonded extension in a different colour really counts as "little changed".
    • I think the point is the from the west you wouldn't notice the extension and the only obvious difference is the electrification masts.
  • I don't see a date in the "Background" section: I would at least clarify when the L&BR started construction, planning etc. We might also clarify the hedge of "from the capital" by explaining the very slightly earlier existence of the Liverpool and Manchester railway.
    • I've added the year that construction contracts were let. I 'really don't want to get into the woods with which railway was first with what caveats because that's just inviting endless drive-by edits and it's not really relevant to this one bridge.
  • The link to cutwater is specifically about boats; it advises that the architectural term should link to Starling (structure).
    • Fixed.
  • Suggest amending the abutments link to point to abutment, rather than the redirect abutments.
    • Done.
  • Lots of multi-cites at the end of sentences/paragraphs: any reason not to bundle them for readability?
    Cite bundling is a PITA if you want to use the same ref elsewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that but it's more difficult to maintain and edit. I prefer to keep things simple. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • whose proprietors were unwilling to cooperate with their new competition: we could possibly explain a little about exactly who was competing with them, and exactly how. It wasn't Stephenson, at least not directly.
    • But it was the piece of infrastructure Stephenson was building. It's fairly obvious how a more modern piece of transport infrastructure would be seen as competition by the owners of the old infrastructure and I think going into detail on the GUC-L&BR rivalry is getting away from the subject of this one bridge.
      • That may be true. I suppose it rests on how much prior knowledge we're expecting of the reader: I've got a general contextual picture that in this period there's a lot of coal to be moved from places like Newcastle to places like London, that that was generally done by canals and ships, once upon a time, and that these were later generally out-competed by the railways, which helps me understand all of this -- but not all of our readers will. I don't think there's anything unclear here, though, and erring on a different side of the dilemma is perfectly fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • to prevent the canal company from demolishing a temporary bridge: who had built that bridge?
    • Surely that can be inferred from the fact that it was the railway company who went to court to preserve it? But I've added something anyway.
  • The cost of the works on the viaduct was £28,000: can we inflate that to give readers a sense of scale?
    • I'm not at all convinced that the figures produced by the inflation template are any more meaningful but added anyway (though the 2021 figure seems remarkably low to me).
  • the overrun compares favourably to several of the other major engineering works on the line, especially Kilsby Tunnel: by how much did that one overrun?
    • Added.
  • trains ran as far as Denbigh Hall and passengers were forwarded to Rugby by stagecoach to complete their journey: I love that rail replacement buses have been a Thing as long as the rails have.
    • Ha! I nearly spat my drank out when I read this.
  • but did not open as part of the through route until: could cut as part of the through route? Not really seeing what it adds to what is already not the shortest sentence.
    • I can't absolutely refute that trains crossed it before Kilsby Tunnel was finished but I take your point so removed.
  • trains ran as far as Denbigh Hall : can we say how far that was, or how much of a detour, for those who don't have a mental map of the 1830s rail network?
    • Added. I had to look it up, not having such a mental map myself!
  • the viaduct was widened on its western side between 1879 and 1882 in keeping with the original design: there seems to be a buried lead here: did Stephenson originally design it wider, but have to build a narrow version at first? I'm not seeing the "original design" anywhere else.
    Unlikely; Stephenson will have designed it for two tracks. Whilst there have been historical instances of bridges and other structures being designed for two tracks where only one track was initially laid (the line between Oxford and Banbury for instance, see MacDermot 1927, p. 300), I know of none where four tracks were foreseen from the outset yet only two were initially laid. There are other instances of a bridge being widened for four tracks, using the same design as the original - Maidenhead Railway Bridge for instance. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah: so does "in keeping with the original design" here mean "in a manner fitting the design of the existing bridge" rather than "as it was originally designed to be"? If so, would clarify. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-worded it slightly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The route became part of the West Coast Main Line upon nationalisation in the 20th century: this seems pretty vague on the date. Nationalisation happened from 1948; our own article on the WCML is pretty vague on when the name came about, but either c. 1870 or 1923 seem to be the best candidates offered there. Any way to narrow it down from the current "somewhere between 1901 and 1999"?
    • I think this is veering too far off-topic from this bridge. I assumed the term originated with British Rail but I suppose it could date back to the LMS to distinguish it from the Midland line.
  • the appearance of the viaduct has changed little since Bourne's depiction: perhaps due to recent rearrangements, we haven't actually introduced this guy or this drawing yet. However, the photo -- which pretty clearly shows that it's now twice as wide -- would seem to contradict this statement (see above).
    • Moved the blurb on Bourne. The width is obviously different but aside from that the scene is largely the same which is what the article (and the sources it's based on) are getting at.
  • Technically speaking, the cite for the listed building status doesn't support Listed building status provides legal protection from unauthorised demolition or unsympathetic modification and is applied to structures of historical and architectural importance, though it should be trivial to find another citation that does.
    • You're correct. HE have changed their layout. It's almost obvious enough that it can be inferred but I've added a source just to be safe.
  • Nitpick: in the bibliography, second ed. and print ed. are decapitalised but Revised ed. is capitalised. Advise consistency.
    • Consistent-ified.
  • It's unusual under MOS:LAYOUT to place the footnotes after the bibliography, isn't it?
  • Suggest adding alt text for the lead image.
    • Good catch. Added.

A nice piece of work and, I'm sure, a considerable feat of research to pull together. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Appreciate the review! There are a few places where I feel your questions would lead away from the subject at hand but other than that I think I've addressed everything. Happy to talk about anything that's still bothering you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: happy with all this and that the article is in good nick. A really excellent piece of work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]
  • Width of 53 feet seems to be found only in the infobox
    • Added to the body.
  • Are you sure that blue-brick and red-brick in the lead should be hyphenated?
    • Absolutely. As UC pointed out above (and as I often point out in FACs!), they're being used as compound adjectives.
  • " but did not open until the September" - is something off here or is this phrasing OK in British English
  • The lead indicates that the widening occurred in the 1880s but the body is not clear on when this happened
    • Added a date. Good catch.
  • The infobox mentions Network Rail but nothing else in the article does?
    • A 20-something-year-old government body is perhaps a bit too ephemeral for a 186-year-old bridge; removed.
  • This article is in two categories for things built in 1837 but the rest of the article would lead me to believe this is an 1838 structure?
    • Fixed.

This looks to be in good shape to me; although I'm not familiar with the relevant corpus of sourcing for this topic. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HF! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Hog Farm Talk 01:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Support from TR

[edit]

A most enjoyable article. The merest quibbles about four points:

  • In the lead you say "Modern engineers and railway historians have suggested that Wolverton Viaduct is not as innovative or impressive as some that followed..." I'm not sure that's quite substantiated in the main text, where the comments are mostly complimentary.
  • You might decide whether the L&BR should be plural or singular: "the L&BR were forced" but "a history of the L&BR for the 150th anniversary of its opening".
  • "the line still required significant civil engineering works" – what did they signify? I think you want "major" or some other synonym of "big". (This is Plain Words on "significant": "This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'") The phrase occurs in the lead and again in the main text.
  • "partially dressed in red sandstone" – I should write "partly" here, though "partially" is not wrong and one can lose the will to live wading through the long sections on the two words in the current edition of Fowler. I don't press the point.

I'll look in again in the confident expectation of adding my support. Tim riley talk 08:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Tim! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think "not as innovative" is a reasonable reflection of the body—specifically the comparison with Wharncliffe Viaduct. Other than that, I think I've addressed all your quibbles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you say "Modern engineers and railway historians have suggested", which means at least four people – modern engineers plural and railway historians plural – and you only quote two. Or perhaps Jenkinson and Beckett are or were simultaneously engineers and historians, in which case I withdraw my objection. Tim riley talk 12:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think about it, the insertion of "Some" before "modern engineers..." would do the trick. Would you be OK with that? Tim riley talk 12:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. So inserted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. The article meets the FA criteria in every respect in my opinion. Tim riley talk 12:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Sources seem to be consistently formatted. Don't know about most of them, is David Jenkinson David Jenkinson? What kind of publisher is Thomas Telford and David & Charles? Spotcheck upon request, but as I don't have any of these books in close range I'll need some photos. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus looks like the same Mr Jenkinson. Thomas Telford is the commercial publishing arm of the Institution of Civil Engineers; David & Charles used to be quite a well renowned publisher of transport titles. Happy to provide photos if you or the coords want a spot check. Most of the books are to hand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for the coordinators. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, just checking what it is you would like from us. At the moment I am happy with the sourcing, but more importantly - are you? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is fine, just wondering if a spotcheck is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am content for there not to be one Jo-Jo. But you did the source review, so if you feel that the article needs or would benefit from a spotcheck let us know. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What HJ said - plus, (i) it is definitely the same David Jenkinson; (ii) David & Charles were right up there with Ian Allan as one of the principal publishers of RSs for British railway topics. Since both publishers went out of business, the reliability of subsequently-written books has dropped - some of them even recycle previously-published material, including errors and misconceptions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pen & Sword seem to have taken up the mantle to some extent but yes, the demise of those two is to be lamented. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "to the designs of Robert Stephenson". Is the plural designs intended?
  • "The viaduct and embankment feature in drawings by John Cooke Bourne." Are any available to illustrate the article?
  • Link "blue-brick" and "red-brick". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild cit the plural; the drawings are PD but not obviously online (there's one in Thompson but I don't have anything more sophisticated than taking a photo of the page); are you sure about the last? I'd have thought most readers would know what a brick is and red/blue is not much of a leap from there but it's not a hill I'd die on! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wouldn't personally start tearing up cobblestones for a barricade over red-brick, but I am willing to bet whatever you want that an average reader wouldn't understand that the colour is the least consequential of a blue brick's - or perhaps blue engineering brick's - differences. I thought I understood them, but the rather fine articles educated me further. Be good and link them before anyone starts thinking that blue bricks' qualities should be explained in line, along with why they were chosen for the extension. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blue bricks are called blue in the same sense that blue cats are called blue - they're both actually grey. Many people with grey eyes will call them blue (but genuine blue eyes do exist). Some people don't understand the term "blue brick", and indeed model manufacturer Peco sell simulated loads for model railway wagons, one of them NR-202B Bricks, Blue is actually something of a Royal blue, not like proper blue brick at all. So I think that the brick term should be linked. Red brick is not as necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I added a link in the lead. It's already linked in the body HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:24, 3 May 2024 (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/Wolverton_Viaduct/archive1&oldid=1222335553"