Talk:Gaunless Bridge

Image

The article now has a commonscat and some extra images. It does not yet have any images of remaining industrial archaeology, which is what the reqphoto template is asking for. I have therefore not removed the reqphoto template. Storye book (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

Article Passed GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gaunless Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: ТимофейЛееСуда (talk · contribs) 22:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Greetings! I will be reviewing this article nomination for Good Article status. My initial review should be up shortly. I will first fill out my review form then a (hopefully) brief prose & reference review. I look forward to reading this article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Just to note, I am not extremely familiar with trains, bridges, engineering, etc, so I may have a few questions simply for my own personal understanding. I am reading and reviewing the article as if I were of the general don't-know-specifics population. As such, it is taking me a bit longer to properly read and review but my review will still be posted in the early hours of tomorrow (UTC). Thank you for your patience. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks, it would be good to get the viewpoint of someone unfamiliar with both bridge design and Stephenson. It's all too easy to assume that some things are 'just obvious'. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Review GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Is it reasonably well written? A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: Article needs minor copy-editing. See prose review. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Needs improvement per MOS:LEAD and MOS:PARAGRAPHS. The lead should be able to stand alone as a summary of the entire article. Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. Has an appropriate reference section: B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: C. No original research: There might be some WP:OR. See prose review for questions. Is it broad in its coverage? A. Major aspects: B. Focused: Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias: Is it stable? No edit wars, etc: Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Overall: Pass or Fail: See below prose review for more information. Prose Review Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text." I would incorporate the single sentences that start each section into the first paragraph making the whole article read better. Lead The lead needs to be able to be a stand alone overview of the whole article per MOS:LEAD. Currently it doesn't cover the Location or Comparable bridges at all. As the article is about the bridge, it would be wise to include information about its original location, and maybe even its current display location. I would also recommend including something about how rare the design is (which is a very interesting fact). As this bridge seems to be important to George Stephenson's career, I would also include that it was his design. I would still omit the comparable bridge (there is only one) from the lead. It's just not that important. Lead space is important and it should focus on the important stuff. The location could be included, but again even this is minor. The main thing would seem to be that its route was a minor horse-worked feeder to the main line (i.e. not loco-hauled, permitting a lighter bridge) and that it was also part of the world-famous Stockton and Darlington project. The River Gaunless itself is very minor - but then it does give the name. It's unimportant to Stephenson's career (the design went nowhere) and he was involved as the locomotive engineer who took on the whole of the S&DR, not as a bridge expert. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Infobox question: The Infobox says it was opened in 1823. The article says the bridge was originally finished on 23 October 1823 but was not opened for use until September 1825. Which date is the correct opening date? You could also include the close date which seems to be 1901. The bridge was opened before the S&DR. No doubt people walked across it for two years, but any coal traffic would have had nowhere to go to. I don't have dates for the Brusselton Incline, another necessary engineering work on the branch . Possibly wagon-carted coal did go this way, as a slightly better route than previously, but that's sheer OR at this point. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Location The very last part of the last line: possibly during a test or demonstration. This information does not seem to be included in reference 5, and would be considered WP:OR. Therefore this part should be removed unless it can be attributed to a WP:RS This should stay, although the wording might be changed. The point is that although there's a postcard of a locomotive on the bridge, there is no evidence to claim that this indicates locomotives worked across the bridge as a general way of operating. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Design Since it is the first time in the actual article that you mention the railway, I would use the full name of the railway in end of the first sentence. In the third sentence: The upper member is in compression, as for an arch bridge, and the lower in tension, as for a suspension bridge. does not make sense to me. From reading the article, I believe that "in compression" and "in tension" are technical terms on the engineering physics of the bridge. Is that correct? Also, when you say as for an... are you meaning similar to like an... or similar to? If the article can't use "in compression" in contrast to "in tension", then there's no point in going any further. The idea is that this forms a balanced truss, where the sideways forces in each member cancel out those in the other member (being equal but opposite in direction), leading to a truss with no side forces on its supports and so only requiring simple piers with no need for endways stiffness. This is a run-on sentence and does not read easily. My recommendation would be something similar to this: "The idea is that this forms a balanced truss, where the sideways forces in each member cancel out, being equal but opposite in direction. This leads to a truss with no side forces on its supports and so only requiring simple piers with no need for endways stiffness." The first time you discuss Brunel, you should use the full name. Also Brunel truss wiki-links to the same article that Saltash does. Brunel's full name is "Brunel" 8-) I have another article on the way for Brunel truss. Basically, everything written about the Brunel truss (everything on WP, 90% of content elsewhere) is wrong anyway. Chepstow Railway Bridge is terrible. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC) The unusual feature of this bridge is that because the deck is above the truss, the vertical members are placed in compressir on, rather than the more normal tension. The first part of the phrase is more opinion than fact. I would write something similar to: "The deck of the bridge is above the truss and the vertical members are placed in compression, unlike most bridges that would have members placed in normal tension." I'm not changing that. It would be better to fail the GA. Achieving GA far too often makes for worse articles. I don't consider it OR to state "Lenticular trusses below the deck are rare" when this is so self-evident from our existing coverage on lenticular truss. BURDEN would be upon the claim that "lenticular trusses can be placed above or below the deck". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC) The last part of the third full paragraph reads: that is in great contrast to Brunel's heavily unbalanced designs that (for Chepstow at least) are barely recognisable as lenticular. This feels like WP:OR, is there a reference that supports this? If so, please add it and work the piece in the parenthesis into the sentence. If not, remove this piece. Again, the only good explanation for that would be a long detailed article at Brunel truss. It's sourcable from Brindle, although Stephen K. Jones' books are the best (see Balloon flange girder). I didn't put it in here because it's about Brunel, not Stephenson. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC) History The second sentence in the first paragraph ends in a comma but should be a period. The first sentence of the second paragraph reads odd to me: The winter of 1824 had heavy snows and even before the line was opened, the bridge was damaged by flooding. I recommend changing to "Heavy snows in the winter of 1824 caused the bridge to be damaged due to flooding prior to opening." Do you know who did the rebuilding of the bridge? No I presume it was the same builders as there's no reason to believe otherwise, but I have no source for that. It may be seen today in the Science Museum, London. I believe you are talking about the model since later you say the bridge is in a different location. I would change this to: "As of 2013 (or whatever date this is true), the model is on display at the Science Museum, London." Although the last sentence of this section is very interesting, is this fact included in a source? It would be great if we could attributed this. Also, what was the date that it passed this milestone? Seems like it was open/in use from 1825-1901 (76 years) and was first displayed on 1927 to present, but 76 years would've been in 2003. I would include that date (if it is correct) in this sentence. Comparable bridges Are there bridges other than the Escomb Bridge that are comparable to the Gaunless Bridge? If not I would change the title of this section toe Escomb Bridge and add a sentence or two to the paragraph stating how it is one of few that are similar. If there are others, I would recommend including those, even if its just a piece. The title of the section makes it look like there are multiple, but you only list one. References I would split the the three notes into a separate section called Notes. These are important pieces of information that would be better suited in their own section. You should pull reference into a sub section, called something like Works cited, and do like you've done for reference 4 & 7 where each use of that reference is the specific page number. This completes my first read-through and review of the article. Unless you object, I'm going to do some minor copy-editing that would be tedious to put in the review. Once again, I am not too knowledgeable on this subject, so I request your patience with any misunderstandings I may have. If you have any questions, or any part of my review does not make sense, please don't hesitate to contact me. You are very close with this article and after these few resolutions and a final read-through, this article will soon pass. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your comments here. Overall though, I think it's best if this was withdrawn from GAN. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn without reservations for a future GAN. Thank you for your time. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Well, actually thank you for your time and your comments here. 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Couple of comments

Hi Andy,

Thought I'd add my notes to a new section:

1. Most of my research has been with the Stephenson railways, but surely Brunel's full name is Isambard Kingdom Brunel?
2. Just a minor formatting thing, but I would split the notes and references into two sections
3. I'm interested about the idea that the bridge was only used with horses. The Brusselton line is still shown on this 1948 OS map[1], crossing the Gaunless south of West Auckland station; of course the rest of the original S&DR line in this area is not shown. Locomotives were used on the Hagger Leases branch after 1856, and they had been tested a few years previously. The bridge was replaced in 1901, but if locomotives did not cross that would mean horses or a stationary engine was used until then. However, 1856 is generally given as the last date for horses on the S&DR; unfortunately my sources are a bit vague on this bridge, although I have have ordered a couple of books. Edgepedia (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I could have misunderstood here, I shall check my sources later this evening. Edgepedia (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

1856 sounds like its the date of the tunnel opening that replaced Brusselton Incline. The tunnel being less steep could be loco worked. Etherley had already closed as an incline and the track lifted by the 1840s, after it had been bypassed by the Bishop Auckland and Weardale Railway. This is for the Haggerleazes branch though, I don't know about the Witton Park line, across the bridge, that was a branch of this branch. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Shildon Tunnel opened in 1842; the line connecting this to West Auckland, bypassing the incline, opened in 1858. I've checked my sources: Kirby pp. 94–95 says the last horses were used on the S&DR in 1854, however Allen p. 112 says that a horse was used between Stockton and Middlesbrough on Sundays until 1864. Edgepedia (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaunless Bridge. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121223042354/http://sine.ncl.ac.uk/view_structure_information.asp?struct_id=1839 to http://sine.ncl.ac.uk/view_structure_information.asp?struct_id=1839

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)