Talk:Tamar Bridge/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 08:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping somebody else could do this but as they haven't I guess I'll do it ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * "It is a toll bridge, with a discount available via an electronic payment scheme." -seems strange to mention discount so early in the article! I would probably move mention of that to the last paragraph and add a little more detail on tolls from the Legacy section.
 * I've moved the toll information. I'm not inclined to add historical tolls (though I've just found a source outlining some more historical tolls which I'll add in a mo) as I don't think they're of pressing importance to anyone who just wants to look at the lead and go further Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "here was an increased requirement" -doesn't quit seem right here, increased demand?
 * I've rejigged this a bit Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * " It has a central span of 335 metres (1,099 ft) and two side spans of 114 metres (374 ft)." in location, I would also put this in the lede as it's important, regardless if the infobox says it!
 * I've put the length in, as it turns up in numerous sources, but I don't think the side spans are important enough for the lede myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems odd to have these both in the same section. To me, something like toll prices belongs in a lower section. like operation.
 * Location and tolls
 * The basic idea (and it is consistent with Dartford Crossing which I used as a basic structural template) is to put the "nuts and bolts" of basic information about the bridge first. A casual reader who is prepared to get past the lede may simply be looking to confirm they're looking at the right article, or want to know how much it costs to drive across, and in which direction. I've put "tolls" in a separate sub-section, and added a bit about concessions (if I can find a source that exempts emergency vehicles, I'll pop that in too). While I'm interested to know it was originally 3/- to drive a cross, I don't think so many people are, so I think it belongs later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Construction
 * "The alternative was to catch a ferry across the Tamar; the Torpoint Ferry had been running successfully since 1834, and is still in active service,[5] while the Saltash Ferry ran near to the bridge's present location.[6] However" -this grates a little bit, the punctuation in the first and then the However I think. Try to avoid the "However" and make this flow better.
 * I've copyedited this. While we're here, though, could you double-check the date of the Torpoint Ferry - the source I used gives an 1834 opening date, but our article claims it has been running since the late 18th century. There's no point copyediting something that's not factually accurate! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "It could support an estimated capacity of 20,000 vehicles a day,[13] with a maximum individual vehicle weight of 38 tons." -I'd also mention this in the lede as it's vital info really.
 * "The bridge was unofficially opened at 6am on 24 October 1961, when the construction barriers were removed." -vague, as it's not clear what an "unofficial" opening actually is, who were the involved parties? Can you add a bit more on that?
 * "It was was " ;-)
 * If I could find a script or highlighter to catch these, I'd use it. Normally it means I've bolted two or more sentences together to reduce waffle and not trimmed down properly. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "The total cost of the bridge was £1.8 million (now £36 million).[13] It was was the first major suspension bridge to be constructed in the UK after World War II, and the longest suspension bridge in Britain.[2]" -also vital info for the lede IMO, inf act I'd be inclined to mention the first major bridge part in the very first paragraph.
 * Why is hourly in italics?
 * Torpoint ferry was linked previously, it would probably be best to pipe it in the original instance and link the town and then the ferry rather than linking the town further down here.


 * Widening
 * "Work was completed in December 2001 at a total cost of £34 million; the two additional lanes were retained to increase the bridge's capacity.[23] The completed construction weighed 25 tons less than the original bridge,[14] and the design capacity is around 1,800 vehicles per day per direction over the main deck.[24]" -some vital info in there for the lede too.
 * "The work also inspired engineers in New York to visit the Tamar Bridge to see if the reconstruction methods could be used elsewhere.[26]" -a bit vague, is the anything more specific on this or is it just  a passing mention? Sometimes a footnote elaboration might cover something like that.
 * It turns out the BBC covered this in a little more depth, so I've expanded it with several links to highlight why it's significant. The visit did turn up in at least two other sources, so I think it's worth mentioning. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Legacy
 * "dressed as fake breasts," -mmm. I'm guessing that this is correct and they were actually dressed as giant tits, rather than just wearing fake ones? They'd fit right in on wikipedia ;-)
 * As GA reviewer, you will have of course examined all the source material for the article and hence you will have seen the large picture in the Plymouth Herald piece cited that gives you your answer :-P <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Don't mention it ;-)