Talk:Gateshead Millennium Bridge/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Firstly, this is a well-constructed article that makes the subject interesting and cites it to numerous reliable sources. I'll accordingly have few comments to make (though it's interesting to see what the article looked like in March 2004).

Thank you for picking up another one of my articles to review, much appreciated! Unexpectedlydian (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"is sometimes referred to as" -> "is sometimes called".
- Changed.

Image caption "which include the historic Swing Bridge and Tyne Bridge (pictured) " -> perhaps say "(both pictured, the Tyne Bridge under construction)" or something of that sort. The 1928 date of the image is also of interest, since the history is being sketched.
- Good shout, I've amended it.

"industry declined following World War II" -> probably need to add "in the Tyne area" or something similar.
- Specified that industry declined along the River Tyne (which is why the quay deteriorated).

"a new bridge which linked" -> "a new bridge to link", as it didn't exist at that time.
- Changed.

"remarking the design" -> "remarking that the design".
- Added.

"due to the view from some": not an elegant phrase. Who thought so, and what was their rationale for separating "engineering" from "architecture" in this way?
- I've found a contemporary Guardian article that precisely covers this controversy – I've added it as an additional source and expanded the section.

The article has the category "Tourist attractions in Tyne and Wear" but this is unsupported by any mention of tourism in the article. A sentence or two on the bridge's value as a tourist attraction would seem to be needed, and indeed some detail on how it fits in with the tourist area generally, i.e. the Baltic Centre, the Tyne Bridge, the High Level Bridge, the Sage Gateshead, and the old town. This will need to be reliably cited.
- I've added some additional info into 'Regional and cultural significance': two citations regarding the bridge specifically as a tourist attraction, and a sentence about its position within Gateshead Quays.

By the way, "award-winning" is certainly not WP:Peacock given that it's true; you might like to put it back, supporting it immediately with a citation, i.e. "award-winning[1]" or whatever.
- Thanks for confirming, I've added it back in and cited the Gateshead Council awards page.

Bibliography

There is no need for retrieval dates for books and journal articles, nor indeed for "via" explanations, the book citations with ISBNs (papers with DOI) are sufficient, so please remove the dates and vias.
- Thank you, I have removed URL access dates and vias.

Images

File:Tyne bridge 1928.jpg is dated 1928. This is too late for us to assume the photographer must have died 70 years ago; had the photographer been aged 18 in 1928 and lived to the age of 90, they'd have died in 2000 and copyright would expire in 2070. Perhaps another license is available (are Newcastle City Council images PD?), but if not the image is not PD and should not be on Commons.
- Thank you for bringing this up. I can't find this image in the Tyne and Wear Archives collection search, nor does a reverse image search bring up anything useful. I think this will have to be removed. I have deleted it from the article but I'm not familiar with how to delete from Commons. Is there relevant guidance or a template?
  - Many thanks. I've nominated it on Commons. You might note that as a historic image, you could put it on Wikipedia (as opposed to Commons) at low resolution (100k pixels) under the fair-usage provisions, with a suitable fair-usage rationale.

The non-free usage rationale for File:2007£1.jpg is definitely unconventional, but I guess acceptable for GA purposes. I'd recommend reformatting it into one of the NFUR templates really.
- I've added templates as suggested. Unfortunately the source URL is a dead link and has not been archived (from what I can see). Not sure if that's an issue.
  - That's not a problem here.

Summary

This is a fine article and I look forward to awarding it a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you again for your review. I have addressed all of your comments but do let me know if there's anything further I can do. The only outstanding thing is the unknown PD status of the 1928 Tyne Bridge image. I think it will have to be removed from Commons but I'm not sure how to initiate that. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All done here, happy to pass it now. I hope you'll take the time to review an article or two from the GAN list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]