Talk:Falkirk Wheel/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ТимофейЛееСуда (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I am very excited to take on the GA review of this very interesting article. I will be first covering all of the bases of the basic Good Article Criteria then a (hopefully short) prose review. My initial read-through should be complete early tomorrow morning UTC. -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда . 21:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Article needs some help, see prose review below.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * Good job. A lack of references of WP:RS caused this article to lose GA status in 2006.
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * I have a few comments/questions about images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article is very close. See below prose review for more information. --  Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  14:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) 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:
 * I have a few comments/questions about images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article is very close. See below prose review for more information. --  Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  14:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is very close. See below prose review for more information. --  Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  14:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Prose Review

 * Overall I have some general image thoughts, including that per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, images can be justified on both sides. The article on whole would look better with the images staggered as such.
 * The article is very well sourced. Good job! This article lost GA-status in 2006 due to a lack of WP:RS references. Now that is no longer an issue.
 * Have you considered including a video on the article of the wheel rotating? I know there are not any extremely high quality videos at Commons:Category:Falkirk Wheel, but I believe that even something like File:Falkrikwheelanimationmedium.gif has good value to the article.

Lead

 * The difference in height at the wheel is 24 metres (79 ft). The difference in height of what? There is not enough context in this sentence.  I would assume this is about the "difference in height of the two canals..."

Pre-1933 link

 * Question: ...took most of a day to pass through the stair. Is "stair" terminology for the group of locks?
 * Same sentence as above, remove the quotes around the word "run."
 * I think the use here is correct - the article on locks has an explanation which I'll read in due course.
 * I'm not sure either way but I'm happy to take your word for it. That linked article always refers to it as a staircase lock, but like I said, I don't know. If you tell me that stair is appropriate, then I don't think you should change it. --  Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  20:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

 * The panorama image is fantastic, but IMHO is too small. Have you thought of using wide image?
 * For the sake of parallelism, The conditions were that the Commission would fund no more than half of the project, with the backers being required to make up the balance. should read "The conditions were that the Commission would fund no more than half of the project, with the remaining balance being covered by project backers."
 * I did some minor copy-editing. Please verify that I have not changed the meaning or made a mistake.

Design

 * The first sentence is a run-on, and does not make it readable. There is also a few minor errors in it.  I would recommend changing the whole sentence to: "The Morrison-Bachy Soletanche Joint Venture Team submitted their original design, which resembled a ferris wheel with four gondolas in 1999. It was agreed by all parties that the design was functional, but not the showpiece the BWB were looking for."
 * According to displays in the visitor centre... should be removed as this information should be referenced in the source.
 * The Wheel has been designed to last for at least 120 years. should be moved to the first paragraph where it is more relevant
 * I've done minor copy-editing. Please check this as well.

Construction

 * The image in this section is awful dark. There are many better images at Commons:Category:Falkirk Wheel that would fit better with this section.
 * The first sod cut in construction of the Millenium Link was taken in March 1999... What does that mean, the first sod cut?
 * Remove the word "novel" from the last sentence as it is a non-NPOV word.

Technical considerations

 * First sentence, what is deeper coal workings? Is this like a coal mine? Or is this something else?

Mechanism

 * The caption of the lego image should include information about how the wheel was originally modeled in legos. At first I thought this image was not relevant until I saw that extremely interesting fact.  This image is obviously not the same model, but it does bring the article to full circle.

That concludes my first read-through. The article looks very good and most of my requests are just nit-pickings. I'm excited for this article to soon be GA-status. -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда . 14:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've addressed all the points raised here, if you want to have another look. Thanks for reviewing it. Jamesx12345 20:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is with great pleasure that I can say this article once again has Good Article status. Thank you for your diligent work in resurrecting this piece.  The article now is as interesting as the subject itself. Good job James! --  Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  23:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for reviewing it. Jamesx12345 08:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)