Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert Bridge, London/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:30, 16 June 2009.

Albert Bridge, London

 * Nominator(s): –  iride  scent  22:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And the Thames Bridges bandwagon rolls on… Although its location far from any tube station or spots on the tourist trail makes Albert Bridge less well known than its Central London cousins, it's one of the most extraordinary survivors of the golden age of 19th century experimental engineering. Despite having a design that looks like it would be more appropriate for a Wonderbra than a bridge, despite all manner of celebrities from John Betjeman to Robert Graves to Sybil Thorndike trying to get it closed, despite a truly surreal alliance of the Royal Automobile Club and Diana Dors lobbying to keep it open to traffic whatever the cost, and despite a structure that's dissolving in dog pee (literally), this spectacular failed experiment has somehow managed to stay more-or-less upright longer than any of its more conventional cousins. As with the previous entries in this series, I think this says all that could reasonably be said on the topic and I can't see an obvious way to say it better. – iride  scent  22:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments Support from DavidCane. Nothing too serious :
 * Lead:
 * "modified by Sir Joseph Bazalgette into a design incorporating design elements...". Suggest changing the first "design" to "structure" to avoid the close repeat of that word.
 * The bridge wasn't designed for 20th century traffic so it can't really be said to be "poorly designed to cope" with it. Perhaps "poorly equipped"
 * Timber isn't usually described as being "corroded" but it might be "rotted".
 * Is it necessary to wikilink urine and dog?
 * "Unusual colour scheme". Unusual compared to what? The choice of colour scheme and the lighting seems to indicate a particular concern over a bridge collision. Has this happened in the past or is there something particular about Albert Bridge that makes this more likely to happen? Or is it just that the engineers have calculated that a collision would put the bridge permanently out of use?
 * Background:
 * It should be Commission of Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works, and Buildings, which explains why they were involved in Chelsea Embankment - neither a Wood nor a Forest.
 * If Victoria Bridge wasn't completed until 1858, the second half of the sentence "by the mid 19th century the wooden Battersea Bridge was dilapidated and considered unsafe and unpopular, while the newer Victoria Bridge suffered severe congestion." seems to be temporally at odds with the "by the mid 19th century" bit. I think a new sentence should be started after "unpopular".
 * Need commas around "in the early 1860s"
 * Need a comma after "less than 500 yards (460 m)"
 * "A compromise was reached, and in 1864 a new Act of Parliament was passed, authorising the new bridge on condition that it was completed within five years, but compelling the Albert Bridge Company to purchase Battersea Bridge at the time of the new bridge's opening and to compensate the owners of Battersea Bridge with £3,000 (about £213,000 as of 2009) per annum until the new bridge opened." This single sentence could do with being broken up. I suggest after the "within five years"
 * Need a comma after "while" in "...that, while as with a conventional suspension..."
 * Need a comma in the "1000" of "...1000 1/10-inch..."
 * Design and construction
 * As the Franz Joseph bridge was built to the same design, is it known if it suffered from the same structural weaknesses as the Albert Bridge. I'm wondering if the problem was inherent in Ordish's design or in, possibly, poor workmanship in the construction. Note n1 says that they were the only two significant bridges so it might be worth considering this issue in the text.
 * "...warning notices being placed on the bridge warning...". Suggest either removing the first "warning" or changing the second to "instructing".
 * Suggest explain what "break step" is . e.g. unsynchronised walking.
 * Transfer to public ownership
 * "By the time the new bridge eventually opened". Eventually is redundant.
 * "for the building of wide approach roads" Suggest "for building wide approach roads"
 * Structural weaknesses
 * The rods are described as steel here although they are said to be wrought iron earlier. Or is this meant to describe the cables.
 * Pedestrianised park proposal
 * Explain the background to why the RAC so vigorously campaigned against closure and how Diana Dors became involved.
 * Present day
 * Comment about urine and dog linking apply here again.
 * Notes and references
 * note 2. Suggest rephrasing to indicate that the closure of the Millennium bridge was temporary.
 * --DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed re repetition of "designed" – changed.
 * Also agree about the "poorly designed" – reworded.
 * You know more than me about the technical side of corrosion/rotting, so will go with your wording.
 * Not sure about "dog", but I think in this instance linking "urine" is useful. Rotting timbers isn't something most people would normally associate with urine, and the link means people thinking "how does that work?" can find out about the chemistry of urine (which I suspect most people think of as just yellow water). And if nothing else, linking "dog" makes it clear that we're talking about the animal and that it's not some kind of technical jargon.
 * Unusual compared to the other Thames bridges, most of which are either in white or fairly bright colours; as it's counter-intuitive that pastel shades increase visibility I think it does need to be explained at length. The particular concern about collisions at Albert Bridge is that the structure is so fragile that a collision would potentially cause a complete collapse, whereas with the other bridges it would just mean a brief closure for repairs. As most of the preceding article consists of a litany of structural defects I was hoping it wouldn't need to be spelled out in detail, but can certainly make that clear if you think it's necessary.
 * Re Commissioners of Woods and Forests – well, you learn something new every day. I see the Dreaded Word "Arbuthnot" on that list, so moving quickly on…
 * Reworded to make it clearer that the "mid 19th century" refers to Battersea, not Victoria, bridge.
 * If you mean "In 1860, Prince Albert suggested that a new tollbridge built between the two existing bridges would be profitable, and in the early 1860s the Albert Bridge Company was created with the aim of building a new bridge" needs commas around "in the early 1860s", I'm not sure I agree. One could split the sentence in two at "profitable", but I think adding more commas would make it less readable without adding anything.
 * Don't agree with 'Need a comma after "less than 500 yards (460 m)"' at all, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
 * Sorry, looks like I lost a bit when I copied the text. the main theme of the sentence is the bit following in bold; the rest is a sub clause, and the last "and" should be changed for a comma to properly set it into the main sentence: "An 1863 proposal was blocked by strong opposition from the operators of Battersea Bridge, less than 500 yards (460 m) from the site proposed for the new bridge and concerned at potential loss of custom.". --DavidCane (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, with you now - fixed. – iride  scent  10:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have taken out that "while" altogether as unnecessary.
 * Again, I can't see the need for a comma in "a wire rope composed of 1000 1/10-inch (2.5 mm) diameter wires". It was composed of "1000 wires", not composed of "1000" and "wires", which adding a comma would seem to signify.
 * "1,000" not "1000" is what I meant. --DavidCane (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. – iride  scent  10:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the Franz Joseph Bridge other than that it was built, its length, and the demolition date. Any sources would be in either Czech, German or Russian so I'm not holding my breath on it. It was demolished due to weakness, but this was just after WW2 so I couldn't say if that was due to design flaws or being used to carry heavy military equipment. Going into OR mode, I suspect rising traffic volumes weren't as much of an issue in the hinterland of Austria-Hungary as they were in central London.
 * Removed the first "warning" instead to avoid repetition.
 * Have done. I was a little surprised we don't have an article on it already.
 * Removed the "eventually".
 * I actually prefer "for the building of" to "for building" in this particular case, but if anyone feels particularly strongly have no problem with them changing it.
 * Oops, good catch – yes, iron rods, steel cables.
 * I don't actually know why the RAC, let alone Diana Dors, was campaigning about it (I can speculate that the RAC didn't want to set a precedent for pedestrianization, but it would just be speculation; Dors was from Swindon and I've no idea how she came to be involved). I can source that they fronted the campaign, but nothing seems to go into motives, and I can't find anything in any online archives about the issue. (It's certainly not an important enough point to make me go wade through newspaper libraries.)
 * Same response as before about linking dog urine. (I always link the first appearance in the lead and the first occurrence in the body text, if you're wondering why it's linked twice.)
 * Added a "temporary".
 * Hope that's all of them… – iride  scent  01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Upon a thorough read-through and a brief check of the sources, I found nothing to fault. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - and comments, of course - 1. You are using multiple conjunctions in a sentence that sometimes takes away from the meaning. For instance - "The bridge was built as a toll bridge, but was commercially unsuccessful, and six years after opening it was taken into public ownership and the tolls were lifted." You could remove the ", and" and substitute a semi-colon or simply a period and capitalize the six. It would create an abrupt transition that actually causes a stronger rhetorical link. It would also allow you to put the much needed comma after the word "opening". 2. The next sentence has "in place, the only". The comma causes an odd pause in meaning - instead, replace the comma with "as", "and are", or some other link instead. 3. In the first sentence of "Background", the comma transforms a set of two items into a compound sentence which can be grammatically misleading. Just remove the comma. 4. "had been linked" - change to "were linked". 5. "was meanwhile abandoned" just sounds a little off. Move the meanwhile to the beginning of the sentence to allow for a temporal context before the information. 5. "by the mid 19th century" is a clause that should be moved to the end of the sentence as the word "by" stands either as a parenthetical clause at the beginning of a sentence or a clause at the end that places a temporal context to what is said before. 6. In the "Design" section, the phrase "the bridge expired, yet delays" and the sentence becomes too complicated. Turn the comma into a period and restart the next as its own sentence. You can keep the "yet", but a "however" may seem more rhetorically correct. 7. Soon after, the phrase "In the event" seems vague. 7. In "Structural", place a comma after "In 1884" and after "Over the next three years". 8. "subject to weight restrictions from early on" rhetorically, you are looking back to something that is progressing forward. Instead, try "from the beginning" or something similar. 9. "In early 1973" needs a comma after it and the phrase "in May 1973 a campaign" can be spiced up by just saying "a May 1973 campaign" as you are using "in" quite often. The next phrase "In 1990" also needs a comma after. etc. 10. As a final note - your language is starting to become more like Fawkner or Menkin than your previous works. You are introducing some complicated causes and the technical information may become lost. Just keep this in mind. Sometimes short declarative sentences can be a relief in reading a lot of condensed technical data in a row. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the first two. Regarding 3, I think the comma's necessary; "Chelsea, three miles west of Westminster, and Battersea on the opposite bank" carries the correct meaning (Battersea is opposite Chelsea); "Chelsea, three miles west of Westminster and Battersea on the opposite bank" seems to me to imply that Battersea and Westminster are both three miles east of Chelsea and on the opposite bank of the river. Re 5, I've slightly reworded it. I've moved the "by the mid 19th century" slightly, but think it's necessary to keep it attached to this sentence. Re 6, I've split the sentence up altogether. I think the "in the event" should stay even though it's grammatically meaningless; grammatical purity isn't the be-all and end-all, and it breaks up a rather dull section on construction schedules. Re 8, I can't see an alternative to "subject to weight restrictions from early on", other than something equally waffly like "From early on it was subject to weight restrictions"; "From the beginning" would imply since opening, which wasn't the case, while using a date would require the reader to have remembered the construction date; this paragraph is just a brief summary of the problems which have already been covered in detail in preceding paragraphs. Re 9, agree and have reworded.
 * Re your point 10, I agree that this one is a lot wordier than the earlier ones in the series, but it's (hopefully) an artifact of the particular unusual nature of this one rather than a general deterioration in style. "Stone arch bridge" is a simple concept that one can assume the readers will understand; "Ordish-Lefeuvre Principle cable-stayed bridge/suspension bridge hybrid structure" is such an alien concept – even to people with an engineering background – that the technical aspects need to be explained in far more detail than usual. Unfortunately, "brilliant refreshing prose" and "flat wrought iron bars attached at one end to the bridge deck and linked at the other end to octagonal support columns by wire ropes composed of 1,000 -inch diameter wires" are never going to mix. – iride  scent  11:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In what I saw, there was no comma immediately after "Chelsea". "The historic industrial town of Chelsea on the north bank". If there was a comma in the place you stated, then I 100% agree with you. The set of two commas would create a parenthetical and the final comma wouldn't separate the other side of the conjunction "and" from the first clause. By the way, the 10th comment was solely that you know that I actually read these. :) Cheers. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs work on the prose, but there's a lot to like about article and subject. Can you find an independent copy-editor? I've looked only at the lead, which suggests that there are little glitches throughout.
 * bridge's ... bridge ... bridge ... bridge ... bridge ... bridge (end of first para, start of second). Start by removing "of the bridge" and the "bridge" before "types"; possibly reword to avoid another. Use the background context more to avoid such repetition.
 * "noun +-ing" is often clumsy: "led to the Greater London Council adding two concrete piers". Try "... Council's addition of two ...". Is that more formal and smoother? (Serious question, asking for your opinion ...).
 * "today" better after "Consequently,"?
 * for its tendency? "Due to" is avoidable.
 * Comma splice after "over it". Use a semicolon? [Bah, my mistake.]
 * I'm surprised that metric units aren't the main ones, converted into US units. it's your call, but why not be modern?
 * Remove "throughout its existence"? And "in an effort"? Try a few sharpening-up exercises in redundancy here].
 * pedestrianise ... some people would hate that; hard to see how it could be expressed as neatly, though.
 * "to prolong" just a little nicer.
 * Another "due to (these measures)", so I'm glad we got rid of the first one.
 * However, it's condition continues [it's very clear "it" refers to the Albert here].
 * "Due to" a third time ... "from traffic load".
 * This is slightly long and cumbersome: "In 1992 the bridge was repainted and rewired, and now has an unusual colour scheme designed to increase its visibility in poor lighting conditions and hence avoid damage from collisions with shipping, and is illuminated by 4,000 bulbs at night."
 * Very effective final sentence (stub is rarely good, but is here). Tony   (talk)  12:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "bridge bridge bridge" issue is one I'm aware of – and it affects everything in this series – but it's a tricky one to get around. Because "Albert Bridge" is the name and obviously needs to be spelled out in full, "road bridge" is what it is and needs to be spelled out in full, and "cable-stayed bridge", "suspension bridge" and "beam bridge" are technical terms that again need to be spelled out in full, at least on first use, while the bridge was built by the Albert Bridge Company, there isn't an obvious way round it, even though it leads to repetition of "bridge". Because there were two construction projects running concurrently – Chelsea Embankment and the bridge itself – on quite a lot of occasions "it" isn't sufficient as it needs to be clear which project's opening date etc is being discussed. I've done a second pass through and removed as many instances of "the bridge" as I can without distorting the meanings or making sections unclear, but I'm not sure it can be "de-bridged" any further.
 * Personally, I think "led to the Greater London Council adding two concrete piers" is clearer than "Council's addition of two…" – but I have no strong opinions either way. If you (or anyone) thinks rewording would be an improvement, feel free.
 * I've cleared out any "due to"s that aren't attached to nouns/pronouns.
 * Disagree about the comma splice in "Nicknamed "The Trembling Lady" because of its tendency to vibrate when large numbers of people walked over it, signs at the entrances warning troops…" It could be split into two sentences – "Nicknamed…" and "Signs warn…", but I don't think this sentence is unreasonably long and I don't see that splitting would add any clarity; beeping the sentence together makes it clear that the nickname, the signs and the vibration are all connected.
 * Totally disagree about metrication of units. This is an article in British English, on a British topic, and Britain has not adopted the metric system. For articles on topics that potentially relate to other countries, or in fields such as aviation where metric units are standard even in non-metric countries, metric units are appropriate to allow comparison, but neither is the case here.
 * I can't see a problem with "in an effort" in this particular case. It needs to be made clear that it was an attempt to limit the number of vehicles using it. Likewise "has remained open to vehicles throughout its existence" – I can't think of any rewording that wouldn't lengthen it unnecessarily and/or require negatives. I'm not sure that just "It has remained open to vehicles" would make it sufficiently clear that the meaning it "it has not closed to vehicles at any point", not "it is not currently closed to vehicles".
 * Agree, have split the sentence.
 * I think that's all of them. Of all this series this is the one that was always going to cause problems. As per my comments to Ottava above, because it deals with a particular obscure type of design that a reader can't be expected to be familiar with, it needs to go into far more dull technical detail than the other articles (I can say "Chelsea Bridge is a suspension bridge" and assume people will understand what I mean, but "Albert Bridge is an Ordish–Lefeuvre Principle bridge" needs a long explanation). Plus, the fact that three separate projects are being discussed – Albert Bridge, Battersea Bridge and Chelsea Embankment – mean it needs to constantly be made clear which project is under discussion. – iride  scent  16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Wow, from DYK to FAC (and very likely, FA) in a matter of days.  ceran  thor 13:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concern as follows: All other images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Albert Bridge 14 May 2006.JPG: the source contradicts the GFDL license here by stating "All photos are copyright protected." The uploader's only media actitivies are to upload some photos from amoore's Pbase collection.  I have asked for him to confirm his or her identity that should eliminate such ambiguity in the future.
 * I've had a quick skim through the CC-by-SA images on Flickr and replaced it with File:Albert Bridge illuminations.jpg, which illustrates the same point, is arguably better composed (with the reflection in the water) and hopefully should be unambiguously free. – iride  scent  19:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem with yvescosentino's image. Images okay.  Jappalang (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE
 * Current ref 32 has no last access date and has the publisher run into the link title.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed the cite journal that had crept in. Regarding ref 32, this is again an artifact of the IoE citation template which uses non-standard formatting; I've manually added an access date in this case, but (as per our previous conversations on the matter) this is going to come up with every listed building article. – iride  scent  13:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (pokes Iri) then be proactive and fix it before it comes to FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article mention that the bridge linked Middlesex and Surrey? At the time it was built it was partly in each county (assuming centre of Thames as county boundary). Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Suggestion Ignor the IoE and use cite web instead. See any of the UK windmill articles I've created where the mill is a listed building. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re linking Middlesex and Surrey, I'm not sure it warrants mentioning; the boundaries were redrawn in 1889, so it only linked them for 16 years. By this period both Battersea and Chelsea had been swallowed by the growth of London and were under the de facto control of the Metropolitan Board of Works, despite formally being in Middlesex and Surrey.
 * I prefer to keep the IoE template if possible, as using the template means that if/when English Heritage change the database format, all listed building articles can be updated with a single edit to the template, as opposed to updating the 700+ articles using it individually. The sensible thing would be to make IoE consistent with citation, but it would be harder than it sounds, as every single usage of it would then need to be checked. – iride  scent  15:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.