Wikipedia:Peer review/Clackline Bridge/archive1

Clackline Bridge

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like another set (or sets) of eyes to look over it before I nominate it for FA. Comments regarding any aspect of the FA criteria or general copyediting would be appreciated. Thanks, Evad37 [talk] 03:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. I'd streamline the lead section. While it should "stand alone as a concise overview" of the entire article, this section appears to have too much detail. It also has not a single citation, contrary to the MOS lead section guidelines. The description section is very detailed (I won't comment on if it is overly so), but it definitely needs copy edit work, especially in terms of ensuring the tenses are consistent. There is also an inconsistency in how measurements are written (e.g. sometimes it's 7.6 metres, other times it's 126.35-metre. Since the accidents in the safety sub-section play such a major role, you might want to expound upon them a bit more, and include citations. You seem to be very consistent about your use of "British English". Anyway, I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Onel5969. I'm not sure I agree with all of them, but I'll go through them point by point, and perhaps you might expand on your reasons. - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'd streamline the lead section. While it should "stand alone as a concise overview" of the entire article, this section appears to have too much detail.

Really? I was wondering if it was long enough, WP:LEADLENGTH recommends two or three paragraphs for an article of it's size. Can you be more specific as to where you think it's over-detailed? - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• It also has not a single citation, contrary to the MOS lead section guidelines.

No, the WP:CITELEAD part of MOS:LEAD says "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." As the subject isn't complex / current / controversial, there aren't direct quotations/blp issues, and everything in the lead is later cited in the article, I don't think there is a great need for citations to be repeated in the lead. - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• The description section is very detailed (I won't comment on if it is overly so), but it definitely needs copy edit work, especially in terms of ensuring the tenses are consistent.

I'll get a copyeditor to go over the article before putting it up at FAC, but the tenses will differ through the descriptions section as some things no longer exist (ie the railway tracks) and have to be referred to in the past tense, while others still do exist, and therefore need to be referred to in the present tense. - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is also an inconsistency in how measurements are written (e.g. sometimes it's 7.6 metres, other times it's 126.35-metre.

That depends on whether the measurement is used as an adjective (ie 'The span length is X metres' vs 'The X-metre-long span'). - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since the accidents in the safety sub-section play such a major role, you might want to expound upon them a bit more, and include citations.

I'll have to see if I can find more sources/refs... it's something for me to look into. - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• You seem to be very consistent about your use of "British English".

Australian English, actually (not that there's much difference ) - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• A few comments on this interesting article.

• "passed between piers 16 and 17" - when was this line closed ? I can see that it's mentioned later on but here would be a good place also.

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 03:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is a lot on the piers and alignment. While not a requirement I'd love to see a photo showing the piers or otherwise showing the bridge's structure

I'm not sure when or if I'll get a chance to go round there, but if I do, I'll be sure to snap some pictures. One of the refs had a couple of photos, but they can't be used as they're copyrighted. - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• "They generally consisted of four rounded"..... shouldn't this be "They were constructed as" or something similar as they largely still consist of this material

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 03:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• stringers, corbels, and half caps. Corbels should be linked and I'd like to see a sentence explaining what these terms mean for those without a building/architectural background.

 Done in explanatory footnotes. The usage of corbel here doesn't match the article corbel, so I haven't linked it. - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• "repaired a number of times, especially around pier 13" - is there anything special mentioned about why this part of the bridge has suffered more ?

No, the source mentions that there's evidence of repair, but not why repair in that particular area was necessary. - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• "The current bridge dimensions " - needs a year/date rather than the word current

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 03:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• "It was also the point where the road to Newcastle (now Toodyay) departed the Perth to Kalgoorlie road, adjacent to Clackline Brook, which was crossed by both road and rail" - I think the highlighted part should be part of a separate sentence.

 Done, split into two sentences - Evad37 [talk] 03:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• "bedlog bridge" - how is this different from a log bridge ?

That's the wording the source uses. I think its the same thing, so I've linked it. - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• "day labourer" should be linked to Day labor

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• "was also involved" - in this and a few other places also does not add to the sentence and can be left out

 Done, I've taken out a number of the "also"s - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• having cost £9000.....that is so close to the original estimate it's oddly noteworthy

I don't know if that's noteworthy enough to explicitly mention in the article - the original sources don't mention it. - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

- Peripitus (Talk) 06:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I will be replying/fixing issues on the weekend - Evad37 [talk] 15:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this is taking longer than I expected, but real life has gotten busy. I'll try to do more next weekened. - Evad37 [talk] 07:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Peripitus: I have now responded to your comments above. Again, sorry about the delay. - Evad37 [talk] 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Evad37: - Glad I could be of some help. If you need a second set of eyes on it in the future, just drop me a line. After some reading I suspect that "bedlog" means it's a log bridge where the road-bed is also logs (I assume the top was adzed flat though) rather than a log-frame bridge with a road-bed made from sawn planks. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)