Talk:Snake Pass/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 18:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"... and has seen several longer-term closures owing to subsidence and instability with the local geology." What does "instability with the local geology" mean?

Changed to "following heavy rain" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History

"In September 1945, the Ladybower Reservoir opened, which flooded Ashopton and rerouted the eastern end of Snake Pass over the Ladybower viaduct." It wasn't the opening of the reservoir that flooded Ashopton, and nor did it reroute the Snake Pass.

I've rewritten this, but I think it need a little more work still. I've looked at old maps and I can see the route of what's now the A57 is pretty much unchanged apart from the old bridge over the Derwent being replaced by the current Ashopton (not Ladybower!) viaduct. I don't have a source for when exactly the viaduct was built, but I'm sure one must exist. Being a pedant, I'd say the eastern end of the pass is here, so saying any viaduct is part of Snake Pass isn't necessarily correct. What else can we do? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Manchester to Sheffield motorway was partly built". That's somewhat abrupt. It would probably be better to say something like "A proposed extension to the M67 motorway between Manchester and Sheffield ...".

I've rewritten this, and dropped a few other sources in. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safety

Is it certain that Deff Lepard's drummer had his accident on Snake Pass? Seems to be some doubt about that.

The fact is verifiable to a source, but I've read about the incident enough times to not really believe it. This source (which is a fan site but quoting an article in Mojo, so it's verifiable) says it wasn't even on the A57, let alone Snake Pass. Whatever the case, I call WP:BLPGOSSIP - removed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is better off without it anyway, even if it were true. Eric Corbett 11:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we can close this now. Eric Corbett 17:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again for a good review and some good copyediting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.