Talk:Tower Bridge/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: GeneralPoxter (talk · contribs) 13:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Lead/infobox

Construction time period could be included in the lead.
Important events in the bridge's 20th and 21st century history could be included in the lead, as well as its Grade I listing.
Furthermore, some important elements from Reaction and Incidents section could be included/summarized in the lead at your discretion.
The bridge's total length is 801 ft in the infobox but 800 ft in the article. Unless the number given in the article is the real total length, the discrepancy needs a ref.
Two numbers are cited for the longest span. Why?
Some numbers in the infobox need refs since they're not cited in the article (i.e. clearance below)
The imperial unit system should be included first in the infobox, since that's the style used throughout the article.

Addressed these. As the infobox is supposed to summarise the article along with the lead, anything not backed up there doesn't just need a reference, it needs to be added to the body (with a source) explaining itself. However, fiddling with infobox fields is difficult to keep on top of, and can lead to heated arguments, so I try and avoid doing major work on them unless I'm very sure of my ground. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all of these points look good now to me. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1 History

Sir John Wolfe Barry was appointed engineer and Sir Horace Jones the architect (who was also one of the judges). Is this to say Jones had a hand in appointing himself as architect? Not an actual review concern, just curious.
Jones died in 1887, and George D. Stevenson took over the project. Who was George D. Stevenson? Was he an architect? An engineer? Both?
An Act of Parliament stipulated that a tug boat should be on station to assist vessels in danger when crossing the bridge, a requirement that remained in place until the 1960s. This statement appears disconnected and out-of-place in the Opening section, unless this act was passed around the time of the opening ceremony. If so, the date should be specified, and if not, this fact should be included elsewhere.
The high-level open-air walkways between the towers gained a reputation for prostitutes and pickpockets ... Though the first sentence in this paragraph may have been true before the 20th century, the rest of the events detailed here were during the 20th century, and are definitely not relevant to the bridge's opening. Moving this paragraph elsewhere is recommended.
It was a 150 hp horizontal cross-compound engine, built by Vickers Armstrong Ltd. at their Elswick works in Newcastle upon Tyne. It was fitted with a flywheel having a 9-foot (2.7 m) diameter and weighing 9 tons, and was governed to a speed of 30 rpm. I think it's more appropriate for these mechanical details about the third engine to be discussed in the Hydraulic system section instead.
Its colours were subsequently restored to blue and white. I'm not sure where this fits in the bridge's paint scheme timeline. Is it 1) The bridge was painted red, white, and blue in 1977 but repainted back to blue and white before the 2008 repainting or 2) The bridge was painted red, white, and blue in 1977 until the 2008 repainting? If 1), this needs to be clarified, preferably with years; if 2), this statement can be deleted since it is then redundant (earlier sentences already say that the bridge was being repainted in 2008).
A new lighting system was designed by Eleni Shiarlis ... Who/what is Eleni Shiarlis? A person? A company?
This was to allow structural maintenance work to take place on the timber decking, lifting mechanism and waterproofing the brick arches on the bridge's approaches. This sentence is phrased quite awkwardly, as it sounds like "structural maintenance work" was being done on"waterproofing the brick arches", which doesn't make any sense. My guess is that structural maintenance work and waterproofing were two separate tasks.

2 Design

... which can be raised to an angle of 86 degrees to allow river traffic to pass I watched a video of the bridge raising, and it can be raised to a variety of different angles based on the type of traffic, so maybe revise as "up to an angle of 86 degrees" if that's the maximum.
One of the chimneys on the bridge, which can be mistaken for a lamp post, connects up to an old fireplace in a guardroom of the Tower of London. It is long-disused. Seems to be an almost trivial detail, given a lot of other structural features on the bridge that are not mentioned, like finer-level designs and decorations of the walkways, bridge spans, and bridge towers. Consider expanding Structure section to be more encompassing.
... by night, two red lights in the same position. This isn't an independent clause, which it should be since it's separated from the clause before by a semi-colon.

6 Incidents

I notice that coverage of incidents of Tower Bridge seem to end at 2009. I'm not exactly sure of any notability standards events have to satisfy in order to be included in this list, but I'm positive that at least a few more note-worthy incidents took place on/near the bridge since 2009. For example, I found this relatively recent closure of the bridge due to a "suspicious package". Not sure if you want to use that one specifically since I'm not sure of its notability, but at least some more recent incidents need to be included.

The incidents section seems to be a mixed bag of popular culture stuff. My general rule of thumb is to include it if you can write a paragraph's worth of material. If multiple news outlets carry the story in different ways, that's a good reason to include it. Consensus at WP:RSP is the London Evening Standard is okay. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not sure what level of revision is needed to fix this section up. If you believe the work proves to be more than minor tweaking/additions, then I might have to fail this promotion on the account of too much work needs to be done to achieve "broad coverage". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed large parts of the article, and unfortunately, I just think a lot more work needs to be done to improve the article to GA-status, especially with regards to coverage. The Design section barely discusses any of the architectural details/significance of the bridge and its towers (can start here for research), which is already quite troublesome given that the article was nominated for the Arts and architecture category. However, the Incidents section also appears to need more work, as incident coverage does not go beyond 2009. I am sorry to have to decline the nomination. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, feel free to ping me when this article is ready for renomination. I'll be happy to review it again. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the review comments have been addressed and considerable further development of the article....ready for another review perhaps? PSCMol (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]