Open main menu
River Hull has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
December 31, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Contents

CoordsEdit

I have replaced the Coord template with a Points of Interest table. The Coord template spoils the display on Google maps if it is left in. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Stoneferry bridgeEdit

Added link to a section of the article Stoneferry with more info. There are some unresolved questions about

  • The geology of the rock at stoneferry - ie is the stone outcrop mentioned in some sources related to the supposed ford (stone is essentially non-existant around Hull)
  • There are some references to a chain at stoneferry (like the chain that was hung across the mouth of the Hull) - this doesn't make total sense to me eg why?

If anyone has answers to these two please see the talk page Talk:Stoneferry

Imgaril (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

North bridge mysteryEdit

There have been two iron bridges called "north bridge" the present one , and one south of it that connected to Charlotte Street - eg see http://www.old-maps.co.uk/maps.html?txtXCoord=510192&txtYCoord=428375 and click the 1891 1:500 map.

Victoria county history mentions a horizontal drawbridge (1870) built on the stone bridge of (1785) http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66785#s3

I found some images (cached by goole of the defunct driffield.zapto.org site) [1] [2] On the first one (looking NW) you can see a tram on the bridge, and the warehouse which is still there eg bing aerial view (looking W) - see charlotte street where it connected. On the second can be seen the modern (1930s) bridge in the background.

I can't find out anything about it, and wonder if the Victoria County History is in error? Imgaril (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bridge detailsEdit

This article now contains two dates for the opening of the original Drypool Bridge - 1889 in the table, and 1888 in the text. I think the old bridge would be better handled in the text rather than the table. Also, the extensive details in the footnotes could be incorporated into the text. I think the previous history of North Bridge might also be better in the text rather than in the table. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't say which date is correct. Note: The 1888 date is from Port of Hull Journal, Vol 46, No. 4 which is linked as a 'harvard reference' but the journal is not listed in the bibliography.
I was wondering if the entire table (which dates to when the article was stubby) would be better converted to prose, possibly with a simplified side schematic of the relative positions.
I just noticed that the information on the South Bridges which I recently added to the table, is also in part in the text. (but there is more info in the table - which is the wrong way round)Imgaril (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Simplifying or eliminating the table seems like the thing to do (possibly not immediately) - are there any style preferences on presentation of the information in prose eg in order of distance from source, or from the mouth , or alternatively presentation as a history of river crossings also makes some sense -it happens to group together the numerous bridges of nearly identical design together too. I have been meaning to write more on the bridges, but haven't had chance to do the proper research yet.Imgaril (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on River Hull. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 09:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Return to "River Hull" page.