Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chelsea Bridge/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 Karanacs 16:56, 30 June 2009.

Chelsea Bridge

 * Nominator(s): –  iride  scent  20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bare-knuckle boxing... A city dependent on a network of hollow elm trunks to carry its water supply... Biker gangs fighting to the death with spiked flails and sawn-off shotguns... A river filled with animal carcasses... Iron Age Celtic warriors... A gunfight between the Prime Minister and the Earl of Winchilsea... The birth of football as a spectator sport... What else could it be but another visit to the world of 19th-century civil engineering?

This should be the last of these for a while; this is the last of the interlinked articles of this segment of the Thames Bridges series, with the common theme of 19th-century attempts to use emerging transport technologies to engineer new development in the open lands to the south and west of the original London and Westminster while simultaneously making a profit (Wandsworth, Battersea, Albert, Chelsea and Vauxhall bridges), and I think the best of them. It's also provided my favourite strange-but-true DYK (Did You Know... that Chelsea Bridge was little used at night when it first opened, because of its owners' policy of only turning the lighting on if Queen Victoria was spending the night in London?). Hopefully you won't find anything too wrong with it. As usual, credit due to Malleus for excellent work in cleaning up some of the original sticky globs of prose.

(Two minor points; I know that the two quote boxes one above the other make the article appear slightly lopsided – and probably violate some arcane part of the MOS – but I think it's important for them to follow each other like this, to show just how thoroughly "received wisdom" on the merits of the bridge shifted. And the list of redlinks in the list of biker gangs involved in the 1970 fight looks odd; it's done this way because Hells Angels obviously needs to be a bluelink and Road Rats is undoubtedly a valid redlink in that we ought to have an article on them, and linking some of the gangs but not others looked odd. I've no strong opinions if anyone makes a good case for changing it.) – iride  scent  20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought - should Battersea Fields be a redirect to Battersea Park? BencherliteTalk 22:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Technical review
 * One dablink to Spoil
 * External links all work
 * Refcheck comes up problem free.
 * Spoil is an intentional dablink (read the Spoil page and you'll see; none of the suggested options actually covers the concept, but the dab page itself actually does). I don't think Battersea Fields should redirect to Battersea Park; although the latter was built (partly) on the site of the former, one was a large swamp used for growing asparagus and lavender and for general drunken debauchery, and the other was (and is) a High Victorian formal pleasure garden. On a smaller scale, it's equivalent to redirecting Eboracum&rarr;York, Tenochtitlan&rarr;Mexico City or Middlesex&rarr;London. (Or indeed, Chelsea, London&rarr;Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.) I can certainly knock off a stub on the fields if there's a problem with the redlink. – iride  scent  22:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For instructions on intentional links to dab pages see WP:INTDABLINK. William Avery (talk)
 * In this case I disagree. Firstly, there's no Spoil (disambiguation) page, so WP:INTDABLINK doesn't apply; secondly, although Spoil is tagged as a dab page, in my opinion it's tagged in error (it's short, but the one line of text actually does explain what spoil is). – iride  scent  14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Interjecting here, could we use wikitionary? I.e. spoil (piping it of course). Jappalang (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's really necessary to send people off-wiki; the definition at Wiktionary ("Material (such as rock or earth) removed in the course of an excavation, or in mining or dredging") is virtually the same as that currently at Spoil. An odd one; I do think it needs to be linked to something, as it's a term people won't necessary be familiar with and not obvious-from-context if you don't already know what it means. The sensible thing IMO would be to expand Spoil so it's more than a dicdef. Or, what would people think about removing the link and adding a definition in a footnote? – iride  scent  14:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it (wiktionary linking) is allowed and encouraged per Wikimedia sister projects. Editors, however, have differing opinions (Sandy, for one, dislikes them&mdash;see the talk page there).  Jappalang (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep :) Wiki sister pages are not reliable sources, and should be treated as any other non-reliable source IMO ... we don't allow non-RS in FAs, not sure why we make an exception for some sister projects.  But I digress ... that's just my opinion :) I do think a cited, referenced footnote is a good solution.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gordian knot solution. – iride  scent  14:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support & Comments from DavidCane (talk) --DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With an introduction like that, I swear I heard the tones of Don LaFontaine doing a voice over.
 * Lead
 * Slight ambiguity in "...development of marshlands on the south bank of the Thames, to provide convenient access to the newly created Battersea Park." On first reading it seemed to be suggesting that the bridge was built to provide access from the marshlands being developed on the south side of the river to Battersea Park (which is, of course, on the south side).
 * Background
 * Whilst I'm aware of the Wellington/Winchilsea duel, there isn't a citation given for it.
 * Might be useful to state either how far up river Teddington or Seething Wells is.
 * Victoria Bridge - Design and Construction
 * An English translation of "Gloria Deo in Excelsis", might be helpful, i.e. "Glory to God in the highest"
 * Chelsea Bridge - Design and Construction
 * Technically, it's actual the LCC's coat of arms rather than a crest as it doesn't have a helm above it. The blue and white lines are actually barry wavy and they represent the Thames rather than the sea. Might add a link to Coat of arms of London County Council.
 * Notes
 * Note 2: "the river is very low at this point". shouldn't that be "shallow" rather than "low".
 * Reworded to "as part of a major development of marshlands on the south bank of the Thames into the new Battersea Park, to provide convenient access from the densely populated north bank to the new park."
 * Cited the duel – that lost its citation somewhere in the being shunted around.
 * The trouble with giving a distance to Seething Wells is that there are so many ways to measure it – the river is very twisty in this stretch, so "distance upstream" would be almost twice the distance as the crow flies. It's such a minor point I didn't think it warrants mentioning.
 * Added a translation; one of those phrases that I hear so often, I forget that other people won't know it.
 * I think I've fixed the crest/coat of arms thing; what I know about heraldry could fit on a postage stamp. If you wouldn't mind double-checking (and fixing any more mistakes) I'd be most grateful. (The source for this – Matthews – says "crest", but I'm perfectly willing to believe he's wrong on this.)
 * Yes, of course it should be "shallow" (doh!).
 * Hope that's everything. I know that "crests" section is a bit odd, but I think it needs to be explained just why these enormous gaudy things are sitting at the ends of an otherwise starkly utilitarian bit of 30s design. – iride  scent  22:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, Any chance of an article on that duel, even just something of a stub? Seems like a pretty whacky thing to mention in passing yet we have no article on it (at least linked). Some other small, fixable comments:
 * Are those rival motorcycle gangs notable enough that it's worth leaving red links on the chance they get articles made about them?
 * The "Present Day" section seems quite short in comparison to the others. Maybe it's a stretch, but has it made any famous appearances in film? Any famous races cross it?

If anything though those are really just questions, not particularly pressing issues. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The duel is already covered in Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington and George Finch-Hatton, 10th Earl of Winchilsea, already linked in the article. As it's probably the only event for which Winchilsea's remembered today, it seems to me to be unnecessary content-forking to also have a separate article on the duel, although one could be created from the material in the two biographies if warranted.
 * As per my comments at the top, I've added redlinks for all the biker gangs because Hells Angels and Road Rats both need to be linked, and the row of redlinks looked less jarring than linking some but not others. I've no strong opinion on it.
 * The "Present day" section is short because it's a necessary section, but there's not a great deal to go there; the land at the northern end is mostly occupied by the Royal Hospital Chelsea and at the southern end by Battersea Power Station and Battersea Park, none of which have changed significantly in the last few decades, and the only alterations to the bridge itself have been the repainting, the addition of the LED lighting, and the footbridge underneath. Chelsea Bridge doesn't tend to feature much in films – the next one upriver, Albert Bridge, is more distinctive and causes less disruption when closed for filming, so tends to be the generic "West London bridge" used in films (as covered in that article). The only film I can think of to feature Chelsea Bridge with any prominence is Up the Junction, where the bridge serves as a symbolic dividing line between rich and poor, but I don't think that warrants mentioning. (It's over 40 years old, and would need a long sidetrack into 1960s social changes in the areas on both sides of the river to make sense.) The only other obvious "in popular culture", Chelsea Bridge (song), is actually about Battersea Bridge. – iride  scent  14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That last bit is worth mentioning, I think. At least a single sentence like "So-and-so produced the song Chelsea Bridge in year whatever, though its subject was actually the Battersea Bridge." Staxringold talkcontribs 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It would get a bit complicated; the song was written in 1941 (only four years after this bridge opened) so doesn't really belong in a "present day" section; it would also need a very confusing explanation. ("The song Chelsea Bridge is not about Chelsea Bridge. Although written in 1941, it is actually about an earlier bridge, demolished in 1885, on the site of the current Battersea Bridge. While visiting London, Billy Strayhorn had seen James Abbott McNeill Whistler's Nocturne: Blue and Gold – Old Battersea Bridge and The Falling Rocket on display and the song was written about the paintings; because Whistler's paintings intentionally distorted and obscured the structure of the bridge in a deliberate attempt to emulate Hokusai's painting style, it was impossible to tell which bridge was being depicted in the paintings without prior knowledge of their history, especially given that both Battersea Bridge and Chelsea Bridge had by 1941 been demolished and replaced.") I can try to put something in if you really think it's necessary, but I was hoping that the dablink at the top of this article would avoid the need to do so.

Image concern as follows: Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:London Chelsea br N.jpg: not sure what is going on here, but Azh7 names this upload as "Anton A. Zharov"'s work. Not three days later, he uploaded other works under the name of "Anton Obolensky".  Uploader stopped his short contributions to Commons in February 2007.
 * Replaced it with File:Chelsea Bridge traffic.jpg which is definitely free-use and illustrates the same point (the relative width of the roadway). – iride  scent  14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, agreed. Jappalang (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments –
 * "Once such meeting in 1970 erupted into violence". Is "Once" supposed to be "One"?
 * Some slight text sandwiching in Design and construction.
 * Opening: Why is "en route" in italics? Is there a reason it's being given emphasis?
 * Another ton link is really not needed here. There's already one both in the lead and the first section of the body.
 * Abolition of tolls: "Architectural opinion had turned heavily against Victorian styles and Chelsea bridge was now deeply unpopular with architects". Capitalize "bridge".
 * New Chelsea Bridge: More sandwiching here.
 * "With the newly built Battersea Power Station then dominating most views of the area". This is one of those awkward noun plus -ing sentence structures.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 00:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - don't know where that "once" crept in.
 * I don't know what the MOS says about the use of loan-words and phrases and to be honest if it doesn't support italicising them I think it's the MOS that needs changing. This is an article on a British subject in British English, and common practice in British English is to italicise schadenfreude, inter alia, en route and so on. – iride  scent  19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The rule is whether or not a dictionary italicises the word or phrase. All the examples you give (en route, schadenfreude, and inter alia) are italicised in my edition of the concise OED. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree about long ton. On the two occasions where it's used (neither in the lead, incidentally), it's necessary to use the link to confirm which meaning of "ton" – which has multiple meanings – is being used.
 * Capitalised.
 * I'm not seeing any problematic sandwiching. WP:MOSIMAGE is not Holy Writ, and any sandwiching is only occurring between small parts of narrow images, and only at very wide window widths where there's no problem with it creating an unreadably narrow column of text squeezed between large images (which is what that "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other" is supposed to address).
 * Can't see the problem with "With the newly built Battersea Power Station then dominating most views of the area". The power station was newly built. It was then dominating most views of the area. – iride  scent  19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The noun 'ing thing is easily fixed in this case, whether you agree it needs fixing or not, so I've been bold and rewritten that sentence. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support


 * The first paragraph of the lead is supposed to define the scope of the article and seems to define the bridge only as the modern bridge that superceded the old one. Quite a lot of the rest of the lead talks about a prior bridge. IMO you need to redefine the scope of the article in the first paragraph (for example by defining the bridge in terms of its location) or delete most of the information about the prior bridge from the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 07:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree, obviously. The lead paragraph ("Chelsea Bridge is a Grade II listed self-anchored suspension bridge over the River Thames in West London, connecting Chelsea on the north bank to Battersea on the south bank. It opened in 1937 and replaced an earlier suspension bridge of 1857, originally known as Victoria Bridge but renamed Chelsea Bridge, built on the site of an ancient ford.", at the time of writing) makes it clear that this is about a 1937 structure replacing an 1857 structure which in turn replaced a ford. I can't see the issue here. – iride  scent  11:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first sentence was not a WP:GOODDEF it's important that articles start with one in accordance with WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I've rewritten the lead somewhat, and changed my vote accordingly.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:57, 29 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.