Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Great Stink/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Great Stink

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A rather small, seemingly insignificant event in the life of London, but one that some of us still feel the benefits of over 150 years later. The Great Stink showed the right man in the right place at the right time, with Joseph Bazalgette stepping forward to build the sewer system to end all sewer systems, providing London with an effulent-free river. And he did it while sporting a magnificent set of whiskers to boot! Any and all comments welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

  • Maybe my brain is melting after translating 6k words today, but the "in central London" could probably have a better place in the opening sentence (and I can't find it). I'd think the Thames would be worth mentioning in the first sentence too.
  • and his actions mean he probably saved more lives than any other Victorian official. - according to who? Also feels a little... irreverent.
  • Image sizes should be standardized (i.e. same height)
  • I have on most, but the "impressions of the state of Thames water" are landscape next to square, while the "impressions of Father Thames" is a landscape next to a portrait. Should these all be uniform, in which case the width of the two galleries will be of different sizes... Any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have a play round (although it was a sorting out the formatting of the other galleries in the article!) It may be a problem with trying to force the size restrictions on such different shaped pics, but I'll do some testing in a sandbox. (and come asking for help later!) - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1842 he had published the Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain, a best-selling report - duplicated "report"
  • mid-30s °C - Fahrenheit?
  • What was the effect of the stink on the general populace? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More added from the press about the smell and the problem. Separating out the sewage from the sewerage is a problem on this: the stink itself was entirely because of the inadequate system (and the brief weather conditions), so the set up has to be understood before the rest can be worked on, if that makes any sense! - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furness, an experienced contractor who had developed his business in the expansion of the railways, had won the contract for the main Northern Outfall Sewer. - Why the pluperfect voice? Goes for several other sentences too
  • To provide the drainage for the low-level sewers, in February 1864 Bazalgette began building three embankments along the shores of the Thames. On the northern side are - Why the shift in tenses?
  • led one historian - who? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Doctor

edit
Lead
  • "ageing, ramshackle and inadequate" -description seems a bit of a mouthful.
  • "focussed the minds" -doesn't seem right here to me. Perhaps something like prompted them or whatever.
  • "Work on high-, mid-" -looks odd with the slashes here.
  • "To aid the drainage, pumping stations were placed to lift the sewage from lower levels into higher pipes; two of the more ornate stations, Abbey Mills in Stratford and Crossness on the Erith Marshes are, as of 2015, listed for protection by English Heritage" -we're skipping over 100 years, probably best to avoid the semicolon and start a new sentence.
Background
  • Methane worth linking?
  • "Swamp gases" -not clear what they'd be
  • Do we usually state Dr on wikipedia by a name? I know I do in my user name but still :-)
Local gov.
  • Ditto with Dr John Simon
  • " Bazalgette had to apply for the position of Chief Engineer against eight others; his application for the role—which was successful—was supported by Robert Stephenson, MP, the co-designer of the Rocket with his father; the millwright and civil engineer William Cubitt, who had designed and built two of Britain's railways systems; and the mechanical and civil engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel.[19]" -not sure of the relevance of all this to the actual stink..
  • "In February 1858 a general election" -link?
Construction
  • Do we have anything on the names of the companies involved with the project?
  • "including the area around Lambeth and Pimlico" -you definitely must put Burgundy in brackets here so readers know that Pimlico is in fact part of Burgundy :-).
  • "Progress" -is the definite article preferable here?
  • "Work began on the system on 31 January 1859,[17] but encountered numerous problems in construction" I think you should reword this and add "the builders" before encountered.
  • "The rains were so bad " ="Rainfall was so prevalent"?
  • Is it essential to capitalise "the Embankments" when referring to more than one of them?
  • "The building work had required 318 million bricks and 880,000 cubic yards (670,000 m3) of concrete and mortar, and the final cost was approximately £6.5 million." -three "ands" in one sentence is a tad repetitive.
Legacy
  • "up to 8 million " I believe earlier you use the word "eight" for the number—should be consistent.

Looks in excellent shape. Perhaps I'd have expect some more technical details on the functioning of the sewer system, but it isn't on the sewers or embankments it's on the overall "Stink", If you could find a few more sentences on technical aspects of the way it functioned though I think this would be good.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim

edit
  • Lead
    • "Focussed" –"Focused", please. (I know you can find "focussed" in some less fussy dictionaries, but let us not. "Focused", "biased", "budgeted", and "benefited" are four of my shibboleths.) John Snow focusses with a double ess in the main text, too.
    • "out towards outfalls outside" – a lot of outs: perhaps "beyond" for the last one?
    • First sentence of last para is a bit long. You might apply to Sir Brian B for use of one of his spare semicolons after "outbreaks", instead of the conjunction.
  • Local government
    • "A Northern and Southern Outfall Sewer was planned" – the plan was singular, but presumably the outfalls were plural.
  • Construction
    • "Progress of Bazalgette's works was reported positively ... in a positive.." – perhaps "favourably" the first time?
    • "in July 1863 an additional £1.2 million was raised to cover the cost of the work" – how? Taxation, local levies or what?
    • "the pre-existing routes between Westminster and City" – would it make it clearer if we mentioned that this refers to road routes? Just a thought, though I don't imagine the river was a much-used commuter route by then.
    • "was used purchasing" – either "was used for purchasing" or "was used to purchase", I think.
    • "seen as being nationally significant" – "significant" is another of the bees in my bonnet (forgive me!) and I'd prefer " seen as being of national importance".
  • Legacy
    • "The station itself became a grade 1 listed building with English Heritage in June 1970" – I don't like this. There was no such thing as "English Heritage" in June 1970. From memory I think the Minister of Public Building and Works must have listed it. The Heath gov't came in on 18th of that month (I voted, aetat 18 while a sixth-form schoolboy!) and soon instituted the Dept of the Environment, but I think the MPBW must have been the relevant body at the time you refer to.
    • "led one historian to state" – worth saying who in the text?
    • "he redesigned three of London's bridge" – "redesigned" seems a bit of an understatement: the old ones were demolished and he built brand-new ones.

That's all from me. If anyone had said to me until today, "SchroCat's writing is shit", I'd have kicked him where it hurts, but now I am inclined to award the Order of Merde for this thoroughly interesting and enjoyable article. Onward, along the Cloaca Maxima to FAC! PongPing me then, if you please. – Tim riley talk 15:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bencherlite

edit

Passing thoughts from a quick read of this interesting article:

  • It's called the "Great Stink" twice in the first paragraph of the lead, then those words do not appear again until the references. Is there anything that can tell us who first called it the "Great Stink" - was it a contemporary description, or something that only appeared later?
  • From my own digging around, it looks like it was an epithet that was applied at a later date. Searches of contemporary newspapers (though the BL) show no use of the term in connection with the Thames in the C19th. None of the current sources provide a clue to the etymology of the term, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was hoping there would be something in The Victorians by AN Wilson or London: The Biography by Peter Ackroyd, but I don't think there's anything that helps (Baz doesn't even get mentioned in Wilson's index; Ackroyd deals with it all in less than a page). BencherliteTalk 15:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "Two of the more ornate stations, Abbey Mills in Stratford and Crossness on the Erith Marshes are, as of 2015, listed for protection by English Heritage". Only the listing of Crossness is mentioned in the body of the article. Also the "as of 2015" is, I think, unnecessary - they are hardly likely to be delisted! You might want something in a note in the body about Grade I being the highest listing status recognizing buildings of international importance or whatever the phrasing is.
  • Inflation - someone gave me a kicking about this once, so let me pass on my bruises(!) By what measure are you updating £6,000 to £500,000 - RPI, GDP? I tend to use something like Laudian Professor of Arabic#Notes to show my workings in this respect.
  • A good point that I'd not thought of before. It (the CPI measure) was referred to in the references, rather than the notes, but I've raised that piece of information alongside the equivalents. - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more to come but don't hold your breath, as it were.... BencherliteTalk 18:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Bencherlite, all your points addressed, I hope! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BB

edit

Lead and opening sections:

Lead
  • "effluent from industrial activities" → "industrial effluent"
  • "The smell from the effluent was thought to transmit contagious diseases through the miasma it gave off..." According to my Oxford dictionary, a miasma is "an unpleasant or unhealthy smell or vapour". So the sentence as presently constructed is saying that the smell gave off a smell.
  • Second paragraph, first sentence: I think the words "to action" need to be added somewhere.
Background
  • "leading to a loss of life" → "leading to loss of life" ?
  • Can you indicate more specifically over what period the city's population doubled, and perhaps give rough figures, e.g. from 1 million to 2 or whatever?
  • "The disease was deeply feared by all because of the speed it could spread and its high fatality rates." A bit of comma-work advised here.
  • "Snow had removed the handle from the local water pump, with a resulting fall in deaths". Not quite enough info here. "Snow had removed the handle from the local water pump, thus preventing access to the contaminated water, with a resulting fall in deaths"?
Local government
  • "...a 30-year-old engineer who had been working as a consultant engineer..." Repetition. Unless the age is relevant, why not: "He had been working..." etc? There is also quite a lot of "work" in the sentence, that might be tweaked, especially as the following sentence begins "Working..."
  • "The stress of the position" → "The stress of his position"
  • "...and continued refining and developing the plans" It is not clear, here, what "the plans" refers to. A little amplification necessary.
  • "his definitive plans, which planned for" – you can see the awkwardness here. "proposed", or "provided for"
  • "to feed into larger and larger sewers" – doesn't read well. Perhaps "to feed into a series of larger sewers..."?

More to follow. Meanwhile, I'm off to have a bath. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rest:

June to August 1858
  • I've done a bit of ce to the beginning of the section, but the verb "wrote" seems to be somewhat overused and perhaps could be adjusted.
  • "passed into the scream" – presumably a typo for "stream"?
  • "By June the stench from the river..." The narrative has already brought us to June (the temperatures in the previous paragraph, and "mid-1858" earlier), so I would replace this with "By this time..."
  • "The disruption to the work of the legislators led to questions being raised in the House of Commons" – I think I'd rephrase that, bearing in mind that the House of Commons was the legislature. Perhaps "The disruption to its legislative work led to questions being raised in the House of Commons"
  • "Hansard recorded that the MP John Brady said to Manners..." That sounds very conversational, rather than within the context of a parliamentary debate. It's an awkward quotation, as it's given in the third person; I'd probably introduce a bit of paraphrase, along the lines of: "According to Hansard, the MP John Brady informed Manners that members were unable to use either the Committee Rooms or the Library because of the stench, and asked the minister "if the noble Lord has taken any measures for mitigating the effluvium and discontinuing the nuisance"
  • "At the height of the stink..." At what point was the term "stink" first used, or the term "Great Stink" first coined, to describe the situation? The term is used in the lead, but not otherwise. Who called it that, and when?
  • Bencherlite asked the same question, and I don't have an answer, I'm afraid. The work stink was used by the contemporary press, but it was interchangeable with smell, stink, reek, etc, rather than as a proper title. The sources don't cover who coined the epithet, or when, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Construction
  • "Four hundred draftsmen worked on the detailed drawings to show the plans and sectional views for what were twenty-seven contracts to cover the first phase of the building process". Rather clunky. I'd simplify to: "Four hundred draftsmen worked on the detailed plans and sectional views for the first phase of the building process".
  • "Construction was so expensive that in July 1863 an additional £1.2 million was lent to the MBW to cover the cost of the work" Suggest delete the first 5 words, or amend to "Construction costs were so high that..."
Southern drainage system
  • "Three main sewers ran from Putney, Wandsworth and Norwood until they linked together in Deptford, where a pumping station lifted the effluent 21 feet (6.4 m) to run into the main outflow sewer which ran down to the Crossness Pumping Station on the Erith Marshes, where it discharged into the Thames at high tide". Too long and convoluted for one sentence, and there's a bit of an issue with "to run into the main outflow sewer which ran down".
  • Its a very small point, but does the factual phrase "important cast iron architectural treatment" really warrant quote marks?
Northern drainage system
  • First paragraph: I wonder – how much of this do we need to know? Yes, it's relevant, but a little dull and, I'd say, inessential. If I was writing this, I'd begin the section with the second paragraph: "Work on the Northern drainage system began on 31 January 1859..."
  • The sentence beginning "The deep excavations..." is another monster. You could shorten it immediately by cutting the last four words.
  • "The Embankment project was seen as being nationally importance..." Hmmm
Legacy
  • "a series of six sludge boats were ordered to ship effluent the North Sea for dumping." Missing word?
  • Can you confirm you mean "December 1998"? Over 100 years seems a very long life for a workboat.
  • According to a couple of sources, which is what I've gone by, yes. I suspect that it was replaced with another boat by the same name, but I can find no reference to it at all: I have three sources that all say it came into service in the 1880s and went on until 1998. - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An important and truly fascinating article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Huge thanks to all - all suggestions taken on board and acted upon. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Great_Stink/archive1&oldid=1138561599"