Wikipedia:Peer review/Southend Pier/archive1

Southend Pier

I have substantially rewritten much of this article over the past few weeks and would like to take it to GA, a grading I feel it should at least be at, given it's "longest pleasure pier in the world" status. I'd like to try and iron out any minor issues prior to doing this or consider any feedback on how it could further be enhanced. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by No Great Shaker

Hello, Bungle, I've just requested PR of 1900 FA Cup Final and am happy to review a couple of others in return. I see you want to take this to GAN so, as I've done some 80-odd GA reviews, I'll review as if it were at GAN already. I'll try and make a start soon. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: Thanks for this. I have rewritten large parts of it, less the last 2 sections. I have in the past taken an article straight to GAN after changes, but as I have overhauled so much of this, I wanted a PR in advance. Cheers. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hope to make a start on this sometime soon but availability is a problem. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• Link Bill (law) in lead and on first use in narrative.

• Did the bill have any kind of title such as Southend Pier Bill?

• The word "during" occurs five times in the lead. I would say: "opened in the early 1890s"; "played a role through both"; "such as during World War I"; and "In the Second World War". I would remove "during its existence" so that this sentence begins: "The pier has experienced several fires, notably in....."

• In the lead, replace "containing captured German soldiers" with "housing German prisoners of war".

• The three citations in the lead should be used in the narrative only. I'm not seeing the Betjeman quote or the longest pier and Grade II statements in the narrative. The main purpose of the lead per MOS:LEAD is to summarise the content of the narrative so anything in the lead must also appear in the narrative, and be expanded there as appropriate.

Creation

• A construction like "by the middle of the 18th century and by the early 19th century" is momentarily confusing and should be split. I would suggest: Seaside towns became popular with tourists in the second half of the 18th century. By the early 19th century, Southend was growing as a holiday resort. No need to use "seaside" twice.

• Amend "exceeds 5.5 metres (18 ft)" to "exceeds 18 feet (5.5 metres)". As this is an article about a place in England, precedence should be given to miles, yards, feet and other imperial measures as you have done elsewhere in the article: e.g., "7,000 feet (2,100 m)".

• On the subject of measures like miles, feet, metres, £sd, etc., they should all be linked on first use.

• The campaign was led by Southend resident and former Lord Mayor of the City of London Sir William Heygate, 1st Baronet, who was mobbed by crowds upon returning from London with the news that the bill for construction had been passed. There is an MOS:SOB problem here so better to revise the sentence so that some wording intervenes between the two lengthy links. The campaign was led by Southend resident Sir William Heygate, who was a former Lord Mayor of London. He was mobbed by crowds upon returning from London with the news that the bill for construction had been passed. Also, no need for "1st Baronet" in the text and his mayoral title can be reduced too.

Early pier

• Change "a bill to construct a pier" to "a bill for construction of a pier".

• Change "put to the House of Commons" to "presented to the House of Commons".

• Link both House of Commons and House of Lords.

• Do you know the date on which the Commons passed the bill?

• Create a separate sentence re the Lords because "which was in turn referred" reads as if the Commons was referred, not the bill.

• Does the Rayment citation encompass the foundation stone ceremony?

• Full stop after Royal Assent. Begin a new sentence with: "Just over two months later on 25 July...."

• Change "was opened constructed using 90 oak trees" to "was opened. Ninety oak trees had been used in construction".

• Change "despite complaints in 1898 about the smell by passers-by and traders" to "despite complaints about the smell by passers-by and traders in 1898".

• No need to specify Lancashire as Southport is generally well known.

• The railway carried over 5 million passengers in a single year, but was that one year only or an average over a span of years? In either case, which year(s)?

War and inter-war period

• Change "contained" to "held".

• Were the prison ships only in use for a few months from late 1914 to early 1915? If so, replace "During World War I" with "In the early stages of World War I".

• Pipe Prince George, Duke of Kent to read "the Duke of Kent". No need for both titles (as per Princess Anne elsewhere).

• There is a citation needed tag after the third paragraph which must be resolved before going to GAN.

Post-war

• Change "including much of the replacement of the pier walkway" to "including the replacement of much of the pier walkway".

• There is a citation needed tag after the fourth paragraph which must be resolved before going to GAN.

• On 7 June 1995, the pier was badly damaged by a fire which started in the bowling alley, caused by an electrical fault and rapidly spread through the timber roof. Use of "rapidly spread" is incorrect in this sense. On 7 June 1995, the pier was badly damaged by a fire which started in the bowling alley. It was caused by an electrical fault and rapidly spread through the timber roof.

• "Having started as a small fire in the bowling alley's roof and spreading" all seems repetitive in the context of the previous sentence so I suggest these two sentences should be merged somewhat.

• There are several instances throughout the article of either "pier head" or "pierhead". These need to be consistent as one or the other.

21st century

• Everything in this section needs to be sourced. Three paragraphs with quite a wide range of information but no citations at all.

2005 fire

• Again a shortage of citations which are needed at the ends of paragraphs one, two and four.

• Paragraph three is a single sentence and should not stand alone.

• Paragraph four probably needs two citations, one after "temporary toilets" and the one at the end noted earlier.

• "The paddle steamers PS Waverley and PS Kingswear Castle can again call at the pierhead" needs to be revised because the subsequent clause mentions 2006. Do the steamers still call there now?

• As with paragraph three, paragraph five is also a single sentence and should not stand alone.

Cultural centre in the Pier Pavilion

• Citations needed for Sweett group and Kier Group. Also, the former should be Sweett Group.

Railway

• Does reference #50 encompass all of the second paragraph, given the wide timespan?

• Is "Pier Head" an official name or should the text refer to "the pierhead station"?

Lifeboat station

• The last sentence needs a citation.

In fiction

• This section is obviously an add-on by someone other than the main contributor and, frankly, it should be deleted as WP:TRIVIA unless it can be substantially improved in both content and quality.

• If it is retained, it should begin with an introduction to say that the pier has been used as a location in films and/or novels. Has it occurred in any well-known novels or feature films? If it has only featured in soap operas then that is trivia.

• Remove bullet points as the paragraph should be in narrative form, not a list.

• The piece about The Bill needs a citation.

• Change "Summer of 2011" to "summer of 2011" (case).

• Amend "where several characters head there for the day" which is poor grammar.

Images

• I like the images which are all relevant and well-captioned. I personally can't see any problem with usage as they appear to be a mixture of PD and own work but it might be as well to double-check with someone at the WikiMedia Commons end in case I'm missing something.

References and categories

• A linkage error occurs with the Foote 2008 reference (#42), probably because his name in the bibliography is Foote Wood.

• Can't see a citation for Matthews 1995 so the book should be in a further reading section, or removed.

• Categories should be sorted alphabetically.

Summary

Certainly an interesting article and, on the whole, an enjoyable read. I'm afraid I've never been to Southend, not even to Roots Hall, but I would like to see this pier sometime. I'm well familiar with the one at Southport which is mentioned in the article.

In terms of the GA criteria, you are very close to #1 (well written) and will be there if you deal with the points raised above and then just run a thorough copyedit. I really would get rid of that trivia at the end, however, which undermines all the foregoing good work. The biggest problem is with GACR#2 (verification) because several citations are needed and that could result in an immediate WP:GAFAIL at GAN. A GA review would be okay on GACR#1a but would definitely fail 1b, while I don't think there are any problems around 1c or 1d unless any of the unsourced stuff is OR. Verification has to be the priority before going to GAN.

As for GACR#3, this is the article's strongpoint and it passes easily because it is entirely within scope and is properly focused on the key aspects such as creation, history, shipping, the railway, the pavilion and the lifeboat. Everything is written in a good, summary style. There are a few questions above which are matters of detail only. There are no problems with NPOV or stability so you would pass GACR#4 and 5. I think you are okay with the images (GACR#6) but perhaps best to just get a view from someone who knows more about usage rights than I do, as I've mentioned earlier.

If you can sort out the verification issues, you should be ready for GAN. My availability is limited but please leave any questions here and I'll see them in due course via my watchlist. Good luck, Bungle. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: This is a truly exceptional peer review and its clear you have read this article thoroughly with the feedback offered. Likewise, I have also never been to Southend so cannot relate to a direct experience, and similarly also am well familiar with Southport as it's nearby. I have no qualms about your concerns of the latter parts of the article, which you rightly observe were not additions by me and would be addressed appropriately before a GAN is submitted. I appreciate you went to the effort of reviewing this like a GA nomination and i'm keen to get this to GAN swiftly so will be working through your suggestions as soon as I can. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)