Talk:Southport Pier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 03:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Location

This isn't really an appropriate title for this section, as it mainly deals with silting and land reclamation.

Tramway

"The restoration in 2002 provided a new 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) narrow gauge tram track ..." The citation given, #26, says nothing about the width of the track that I can see. In fact it seems like 3 ft 6 in was the original gauge, replaced in 1950 by a one foot eleven and a half inch gauge tramway, which I asssume is still the gauge of the present-day tramway.
- It came from this ref which is #25, suggesting 3.6 from 1863, then to 1.11 in 1950 and back to the 3.6 in 2002. Although I have now put this ref at the aforementioned position, I am struggling to find anything more official regarding the track gauge during and post the 2002 restoration, so I am wondering if this specific detail may be removed if that info fails to materialise. I have added a bit extra about the suspention in 2013 though, which I found whilst searching for gauge info! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. Could do with a better source, but I think it'll do for our purposes. Eric Corbett 00:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It returned a healthy annual average profit of £6750 ...". The placement of that sentence makes it seem that it was the pavilion that made that profit, but wasn't it the pier?
- Yes, I have clarified. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph needs to be cited.
- The next citation to the book covered this too, however I have put the citation in at the paragraph for clarity. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I think the entertainments on offer could do with a little expansion. Surely, for instance, Professor Steve Osbourne and the other divers deserve a mention?
- Yes I agree, so I have mentioned a little more. If I can find some images that are definitely copyright free and/or usable, i'll include those too (generally from that early period). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we can close this now, congratulations! Eric Corbett 00:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eric Corbett: Many thanks for this, and i'm glad you feel the remainder of the article is meeting the GA criteria. Would you mind amending the talk page template to the GA passed one, so that this is then processed correctly (as it still says under review). Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pier Opening Image

The image on this article records it as the pier opening ceremony in 1860, which it cannot be, as the Fernley Drinking Fountain is visible in the image, which was not presented to the town until July 1861

I appreciate that this is likely an error in the original source (Southport Visiter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim bexley speed (talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]