Talk:Finnieston Crane/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 19:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I propose to review this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

First reading

 * There should be no need of citations in the lead section because all information there should be in the body of the text where it will be cited. This includes both the city heritage and the BBC.
 * "It is one of four such cranes on the Clyde, after the fifth was demolished in 2007," - It would be better to say, "a fifth one having been demolished in 2007."
 * "The original Finnieston Crane, located 450 metres (1,480 ft) upriver from the current one," - This is a bit vague, could you state more precisely where it is located.
 * It says in the lead that the crane is in the centre of Glasgow and in the History section it says that it is now located 450 metres east of the original one but this is meaningless if we don't know where either of these places is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "but it was demolished to make way for a bridge proposal that never materialised." - Perhaps this could be changed to "a proposed bridge that was never built."
 * I think the Public artwork section should not be part of the History section but should be a separate section at the end.
 * That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I made the changes suggested, and also added some other details. Jamesx12345 20:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Other matters

 * "Checking the images I see that the crane is described in one of them as the Anderston Crane. Is that what it was called before it was relocated? In any event, the name should be included in the article.
 * I think that is just a mistake in the description. I've fixed that. Jamesx12345 20:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "The docks serviced by the crane were closed in 1969, and have since been filled in and developed." - I think you mean redeveloped.
 * Fixed.
 * In #17 there is some archaeological information that you could use to flesh out the article a little by describing what Stobcross Dock was previously like. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do this, but there is a lot of conflicting information (3 basins or 2?) in that source. I think the later one, from R Paxton, is more likely to be correct and probably refers to the dock at its peak. Jamesx12345 20:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More conflicting information. I can't meaningfully access your #2 or page 94 of #3 but "500 feet downstream" is stated for the position of the new crane in Historic Scotland. It also states that the total cost was $69,000, which seems a very odd figure considering Scotland uses £sterling like the rest of the UK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The $ is probably just a typo, given that it is the same as ref 3, but the distance is more complex. This source suggests the bridge was proposed in November 1925, and would have carried a tram along Finnieston Street. To have interfered with the workings of the crane, 450 feet actually looks like a more plausible figure. Jamesx12345 11:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * While doing some research, I found these two image  which show it lifting locomotives, both of which are visually appealing and quite instructive if the correct license can be found. Jamesx12345 11:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This source discusses the bridge proposal, and makes it quite clear that it would have roughly followed the path of the present Clyde Ark. Jamesx12345 12:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the edit you made removing the specific distance between the two cranes is sufficient. The images you mention are good but not necessary for the GA. There are sufficient images in the article for GA now and you can always replace them or add others in the future if the new ones are appropriately licensed. I will have another look through the article now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Criteria

 * 1a The article is sufficiently well written to meet the GA criteria.
 * 1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines as to lead, layout etc.
 * 2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations for all contentious statements. In fact the article was completely unreferenced before the nominator started expanding it.
 * 2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
 * 3a&b The coverage is broad enough considering that there is only a limited amount of information available on the crane and the industrial area of Glasgow in which it is located.
 * 4 The article is neutral.
 * 5 The article has been expanded since March 26th by the nominator and is stable.
 * 6 The images are appropriately licensed.
 * 7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
 * Overall assessment - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)