Talk:North Pier, Blackpool/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Despite living in Lancaster (one bus journey away) at the moment, I haven't visited Blackpool in many years. Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "which focussed for the working classes" Rephrase? Also, a link for "working classes" would be good.✅ reworded and linked
 * "in the pier." Rephrase? ✅
 * Is there no chance of a map? There will probably be some public domain ones floating around...
 * Most of the location section is unreferenced. While this isn't wholly problematic, I'd at least want to see a reference for the length and the admission charges. ✅
 * References for the second para of the history? ✅ Restructured and referenced information
 * I believe there's a better way to convert old money to new money- I've asked for help with that. (See this thread; Malleus's suggestion would probably work a little better than what you currently do. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)) ✅, I much prefer Malleus' solution to mine!
 * "As the original parliamentary order allowed it, a landing jetty was built at the end in incremental stages between 1864 and 1867" The end of North Pier, I assume? Not the new pier? ✅
 * "the pier was extended to allow Richard Knill Freeman to design a pavilion on the pier" Repetition of "pier" ✅
 * "The decor inside lead it" led, I believe ✅ by Malleus
 * References for the para starting "North Pier was heavily adapted during"? ✅ Restructured and referenced information
 * "As mentioned above" Avoid self-references✅
 * "It was also recognised as "Pier of the Year" in 2004 by the National Piers Society." Ref? ✅
 * I don't really see why you separate "Construction" and "Damage and repairs" from the "History" section. I agree that the history section would be long, but you could have chronological subsections ✅ Restructured as suggested
 * When was the helipad destroyed?✅ 1997.
 * "It also includes a few larger attractions, the Carousel bar, Merrie England bar, North Pier Theatre and a Victorian tea rooms." Odd sentence ✅
 * Pier head or pierhead? (Alternatively, "pier-head"?) ✅
 * Ref for first para of "ownership"? ✅ I think. see below about ownership
 * The details about the attractions do feel like they're dotted all over the article. It would be nice to have a paragraph that describes the sort of thing that you can find there now. We don't need a list of every side show, just the bigger attractions and a feel for what else is there ✅ Attractions are now more focussed
 * So the Blackpool Pier Company had it from 1861 until 2009? ✅ Can't find any information of sale prior to 2009, definitely still operated by Blackpool Pier Company in 1953, and Blackpool Pier Company is still active.
 * Looking at the refs-
 * Avoid bare url in The Builder 21: 406 ✅
 * "Walton, edited by Gary Cross ; afterword by John K." What's going on there? ✅ (Used automatic reference from ISBN, should have double checked)
 * "Walton, Gary S. Cross ; John K." Again ✅
 * And more like it ("Gibson, edited by Lisanne; Pendlebury, John") ✅
 * Retrieval date formatting on "North Pier, Blackpool" looks different ✅
 * Bare url on "The Civil Engineer and Architect's Journal 26"✅
 * Dead link, more formatting problems (check your capitals and italics) ✅ replaced with Gazette link

This isn't a bad article, but I'm afraid it does have some problems. While the references seem to be appropriately reliable, their formatting needs fixing up, and you need more of them, as there seems to be an awful lot of unreferenced information. Also, the rather arbitrary splitting of construction/damage from history, and the fact some information seems to be missed, holds back the article. I appreciate that this is a hard topic to tackle, but it doesn't seem to be there yet. Hopefully you'll be able to make some changes. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers J Milburn, I'll hit those points today.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've covered most of the points, but I doubt that will be all! If you could have another look, I'd appreciate it. Also, the only thing I haven't tacked is the map, are you thinking of a map of Blackpool or Lancashire? I'm currently thinking File:Blackpool UK ward map 2010 (blank).svg or File:Lancashire UK location map.svg, and I prefer the latter!   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was imagining a map of Blackpool, to be honest; a map of Blackpool's location in Lancashire belongs on the article on the town. (Giving the article another look through.) J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Second read through

 * "Because Harry Corbett bought the original Sooty glove puppet from North Pier, one of the oldest remaining puppets is on display there." Odd phrasing
 * ✅ Re-phrased into something slightly less odd sounding --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It still feels like there's a lot of material completely unattributed. "The construction of Blackpool Pier (eventually North Pier) started in May 1862, in Layton-cum-Warbreck, part of the parish of Bispham. In October 1862, severe storms suggested that the planned height of the pier was not sufficient and was increased by 3 feet (0.91 m). North Pier was the second of fourteen piers designed by Eugenius Birch," and "it is the oldest of the remaining examples of his work still in use. It was the first of Birch's piers to be built by engineering firm, Richard Laidlaw and Son of Glasgow." seem to be uncited, for instance. I appreciate that over-citation is not helpful for anyone, but this is the kind of information that has presumably come from a history book or something akin.✅. Perhaps a little synthesis, but Margate Pier was Birch's first and wasn't build by Richard Laidlaw (according to the builder and piers.co.uk) followed by Blackpool North which was, Margate has since been destroyed.
 * "The pier as originally constructed ... The bulk of the pier is" tense switch.
 * ✅ Actually I was happier with the multiple tenses, since some of these facts are still true of the pier and some were only true when it was originally constructed, but it'll work this way too. --Demiurge1000 (talk)


 * "The 12 inches (300 mm) cast iron columns" Twelve inch thick, presumably?
 * ✅ Added "thick", assuming that's correct. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Thick" seems an odd word to use, should it be "diameter"?J3Mrs (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I think so, but only provided the columns are/were approximately circular in cross-section - which I'm not sure about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The columns look cylindrical in the photograph. J3Mrs (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've gone with "in diameter", and changed the word order slightly to make this fit in. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "The pier owners highlighted the difference, charging at least a shilling for concerts and ensuring that advertisements for comedians focused on their lack of vulgarity." Could we have a price comparison again, given the dates talked about? If we don't really have a specific date, that's fine. ✅ We were talking about 1879, so that seems like a reasonable date.
 * "Boats have collided with the pier on a number of occasions, including Nelson's former flagship, HMS Foudroyant." Nelson's former flagship, HMS Foudroyant is not an example of an occasion, which this sentence currently implies
 * ✅ I thought this was fine, but I've rephrased it :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd split the "Damage and repair" section and place the events into the article chronologically. Then, you could also split the slightly weaselly "recent events" into "20th century" and "21st century". (The Graded status was given in the seventies.) ✅ certainly. There's only one 21st century event so far, the pier of the year in 2004, which I've left there
 * "The pier's sign was damaged in a fire in February 2008,[18] and again in March 2010.[19]" Is this significant? It seems like there will have been countless mentions in local press over the years of smallish events like this; including these ones comes across as recentism. ✅ Removed
 * "including Blackpool favourites" A little bit tour-book
 * ✅ This concerned me a little too. I've removed it, and also rephrased the sentence it's in a bit more. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "three thousand £5 shares in 1861" Again, a coversion would be interesting, if you can find a way to fit it in naturally. ✅ Not 100% certain about this, as £5 would be well above the average wage value, it's unlikely for an average person to be a shareholder - therefore whilst intereting, I'm not 100% certain about it.
 * "as well as an eight-seat shuttle running the length of the pier." Is that still there? Worth mentioning in the "attractions" section? ❌ It's not there at the moment, just the tracks. The Sedgewicks have said they want to bring it back.
 * "(Repr. ed.). London [u.a.]: Croom Helm [u.a.]" What's all that? Others have it to. On a probably related note, I see some publishers have locations, others don't. Consistency is a help. ✅ I didn't add any of the locations - all generated automatically. I started to check what I could, but have removed them for consistency.
 * ""Fire crews tackle resort pier fire". Blackpool Gazette. Retrieved 2008-04-1" Inconsistent date format. Italicise newspaper names (and consider linking). Check others like it. ✅ (removed as part of early suggestion. Also italicised all newspaper names and linked.

Coming along nicely, but some further polishing is needed. Some of the sources aren't ideal, but I'm happy with them for GAC. Images look solid. J Milburn (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, just posting here to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this- I've just made a few fixes, and intend to make a few more. The article's coming along very nicely, but I want to get it right before I promote it. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, having looked through a few more times, I am happy that the article is ready for good article status. I suspect that there is a lot more to be said, and the reliance on freely-accessible web-sources suggests that there are a lot of reliable sources out there yet to be referenced. As such, considerable research would be needed before this was ready to venture into FAC, but I am happy that this covers the topic well enough for good article status. Sorry the review took so long, but I hope you'll agree that it was worth the wait! J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you know, I have included the article in Good articles/Sports and recreation, but would not object to it being moved elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot J Milburn. Not quick enough to be in the Wikicup, but I didn't really deserve a place in there anyway - not done nearly enough work recently. Thanks a lot for your hard work reviewing.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)