Talk:West Pier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Biblioworm (talk · contribs) 00:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.
2. It is verifiable.
3. It is broad in its coverage.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
5. It is stable. — There appears to be a sockpuppet persistently changing the lede, but that's not a serious issue, since the article can be semi-protected if the socking persists.
6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

Notes

Lede

• An extension was added in 1893, and a new concert hall was built in 1916. — Everyone knows that an extension adds something, so perhaps change the first part of the sentence to "The pier was extended in 1893". As for the second part, I don't think "new" is necessary, because "built" already implies "new".

I've gone with It was extended in 1893, and a concert hall was added in 1916." - same information, less text. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• The pier reached its peak attendance during this time, with 2 million visitors during 1918–19. — "during 1918-19" sounds strange. Perhaps replace with "between 1918 and 1919".

I've done this - it's a bit annoying to have split years, but that's what the source says to I have to go with it Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Wikilink "Second World War". You may also want to call it "World War II", since that seems to be the more common name.

As World War II is the article name, I can accept that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• A local company took over ownership in 1965, but were unable to meet the increased maintenance cost, and ultimately filed for bankruptcy. — The part which says "took over ownership" sounds repetitive. "took ownership" would sound better. Also, change "were unable" to "was unable", since "company" is a singular noun.

I've gone with "A local company took ownership in 1965, but could not meet the increased maintenance cost" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Unable to find a suitable buyer, the pier closed in 1975, and subsequently fell into disrepair. — A pier isn't a living thing, so it can't find a suitable buyer. A better wording would be "Without a suitable buyer".

Replaced with "They could not find a suitable buyer, so the pier closed in 1975" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Those of the West Pier Trust – the charity which owns the pier – were opposed by some local residents and by the nearby Palace Pier claiming unfair competition. — This sentence is unclear. First, delete "Those of", since "The West Pier Trust" means the same thing. (You see, I'm very much of a conciseness stickler...) After that, change "were opposed" to "was opposed", because "The West Pier Trust" is singular. Next, clarify why the residents and the Palace Pier were claiming unfair competition. There should also be a comma before "claiming".

You could have just said "I can't make head or tail of this prose, write it again" ;-) ... also as an inanimate object, the Palace Pier cannot claim unfair competition, but its owners can. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Despite the pier's Grade I listing, English Heritage declared it to be beyond repair." — Is the pier's Grade I listing relevant here?

I guess not. Reworded. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

19th century

• The West Pier was constructed during a boom in pleasure pier building in the 1860s, which saw 22 new piers being erected across Britain. — Reword "which saw 22 new piers being erected" to "during which twenty-two new piers were erected", or something similar.

Do we need 22 in words? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM says that words which can be spelled with two words or less should be written. However, I'm not going to make a big deal over such a minor issue. --Biblioworm 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• It was designed by the architect Eugenius Birch as a place for seaside visitors to take in fresh sea air. — It is not necessary to place "the" before "architect". Also, "take in" sounds too colloquial; perhaps "breathe" would be a good replacement?

I went with "enjoy" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Some wealthy residents in Regency Square, that lay adjacent to the proposed site of the pier, objected that the planned toll houses at the entrance would spoil the view of the sea from their homes, but it was ultimately felt that the pier would have a positive effect on property values in the town. — Change "that lay adjacent" to "which lay adjacent". Next, how does the last portion of the sentence (but it was ultimately felt...) relate to the preceding portion of the sentence?

I've rewritten this bit Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Construction began in 1863 and the pier was open to the public on 6 October 1866. — Change "open" to "opened".

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• ...and was the first structure of what was later described as an "oriental" style. — This sounds confusing. Perhaps reword to "and was the first structure to implement an "oriental" style"?

I've trimmed this down a bit Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Originally, the pier was fitted with gas lamps with ornamental serpent designs, which had been directly influenced by similar examples inside the nearby Royal Pavillion. — Not sure if "originally" is needed at the beginning of the sentence. Also, "was fitted with gas lamps with ornamental serpent designs" sounds repetitive. One option would be to change "with ornamental serpent designs" to "that had ornamental serpent designs".

I've changed "Originally" to "Upon opening", which is a bit more specific. I'm don't understand the repetition in the second part, and your suggestion adds more words. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Originally the pier had ornamental houses, two toll houses and glass screens at the pier end to protect visitors from the weather. — As in the previous sentence, "originally" is not really necessary. Next, is the pier "end" the same as the pier "head"? If so, "end" should be changed to "head" for consistency.

Yes, though Wiktionary says it's "pierhead" so I've gone with that Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• A report summarising Britain's piers in the New Scientist called the West Pier Birch's "masterpiece" — Move "in the New Scientist" before "summarising", and add a period at the end of the sentence.

That sounds complicated :-/ .... I've trimmed it down Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the period just now; no need to hold up the review over minor issues... --Biblioworm 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• The pier's superstructure was expanded in 1893 when the pier head was extended and a pavilion added with a capacity for 1400 under the supervision of Birch's nephew, Peregrine. — This sentence sounds like a run-on. I'd suggest a reword to something along the lines of: "The pier's superstructure was expanded in 1893 under the supervision of Birch's nephew, Peregrine, when the pier head was extended and a pavilion added with a capacity for 1400 people."

I've removed "the pier's superstructure was expanded", since the rest of the sentence makes it obvious it's an extension / expansion, and trimmed the rest of the sentence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• When the earlier Royal Suspension Chain Pier was demolished following a storm in 1896, the West Pier became the only one on Brighton's seafront, until the construction of the Palace Pier. — Change "earlier" to "older", change "one" to "pier", and delete the comma after "seafront".

I've reworded this, but I don't think "the West Pier became the only pier" is a good idea as that's too much repetition. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought replacing "one" with "pier" would clarify the sentence, but I suppose it's quite obvious that the sentence is discussing piers. --Biblioworm 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

20th century

• In April 1900, seven sailors from HMS Desperate were drowned in bad weather as they approached the pier. — Delete "were" from "were drowned"; it's not really needed.

Couldn't agree more. Done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• By the early 20th century, the earlier priority of good sea air on the pier had been replaced with a desire to see more public entertainment. — Replace "to see more" with "for".

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Attendance fell due to the onset of the First World War, but resumed afterwards, with around 2 million people visiting between 1918 and 1919. — For consistency, change "First World War" to "World War I".

I thought I did this, but it appears I didn't - now fixed Ritchie333 ^(talk)

^(cont) 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• The 19th century bandstand was demolished between 1914 and 1916. — Was the bandstand demolished gradually, or is the precise year of demolition unknown?

The source says, verbatim, "Between 1914 and 1916 the West Pier’s covered bandstand was demolished." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• It was replaced by an eight-sided grand concert hall, constructed out of cast-iron arches. — The sentence would sound better if "out of" was replaced with "using" or "with".

I've gone with "from" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• It opened on 20 April 1916 with a concert by the King's Royal Rifles silver band, made up of war veterans. — Replace "made up" with "comprised".

I can't do that because that will put "comprised of" in a sentence and GiraffeData will revert it ;-) .... I can't think of a nice way of saying what's in the article - "containing war veterans" doesn't sound quite right, any other ideas? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"composed of", perhaps? That's one option I see on GD's page concerning "comprised of". --Biblioworm 15:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• The concert hall had its own in-house orchestra by November, and ticket sales for concerts accounted for 43% of the pier's revenue by 1920. — These two topics are not really related, so they should probably be split into separate sentences.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• The West Pier tended to cater for locals, while the Palace Pier was used more by day trippers. — "tended to cater" sounds informal. How about "usually catered" or "generally catered"? It also seems that there should be a dash between "day" and "trippers".

I've gone with "favoured by" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• A new top-deck entrance was added to the hall in 1932. — Delete "new", since "added" already makes it clear that the addition was new.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• The pier's central decking was removed during the Second World War in order to prevent enemy landings, and its popularity began to decline. — Delete "in order", since it is unnecessary to keep the meaning of the sentence.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• On 26 November 1944 a Royal Air Force Hawker Typhoon single-engined monoplane fighter hit the pier and then crashed onto the beach. — Delete "then" ("and then" is generally considered to be bad grammatical practice) and replace "onto" with simply "to".

Replaced with "crashing onto the beach". Sorry, this was written by somebody else and parked at the end of the article and I forgot to copyedit it :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• The Typhoon was part of a flight of four aircraft escorting a VIP flight. — Delete "a flight of".

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• By the 1960s, the pier was suffering serious financial difficulties. — Add "from" between "suffering" and "serious".

Done - makes sense really, doesn't it? Piers, being inanimate objects, don't tend to get hard up and out of pocket! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• In 1965, it was bought by a company that owned some seafront hotels and entertainment venues. — Is the name of this company known?

I can't find a source, but I'll have one final look round as it would be a shame to have to omit this information. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Portions of wood and iron from the pier began to fall on the beach, and the main pierhead was closed in 1970 due to safety concerns. — Change "began to fall" to "fell". Also, concerning "main pierhead", was there more than one pierhead?

I've gone with "Some portions of wood ... fell on the beach". And I think "pierhead" is okay Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• The pier was Grade II listed in 1969[16] and the council served compulsory repair notices, but the company was unable to afford them and opted for voluntary liquidation instead. — Delete "instead".

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• The whole pier was closed in 1975 when the Brighton Corporation declined to buy it, passing control into the hands of the Crown Estates Commissioners. — Delete "whole", and replace "into the hands of" with "to".

I've gone with "The remainder of the pier", as stated above it was partially closed anyway by 1975. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Restoration

• Since 1975, various attempts have been made to restore the pier into working order. — Replace "into" with "to".

I've removed this - it seems obvious if you're going to restore a pier, it's going to be in working order. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Supports of the pier believed the council was not interested in saving it, focusing on the development of Brighton Marina instead. — Is "Supporters" intended instead of "Supports"? I would also recommend changing the last part of the sentence (...focusing on the development of Brighton Marina instead. to "but was instead focused on the development of Brighton Marina." This makes the sentence clearer, in my opinion.

No, that's a typo - pier supports just tend to sit there and deteriorate due to wind and seawater, rather than complain to the council ;-) I've trimmed this sentence down a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• The West Pier Trust was formed to save the pier, who bought it from the council in 1983 for £100. — This would look better as two separate sentences, since the currently wording sort of implies that the pier bought itself. Also, is 100 pounds a mistake? That's awfully cheap for a pier; I could make my own pier empire if they only cost that much...

That's what the source says. It looks odd, but many things in the legal world appear to defy common sense. I believe this is a nominal fee, where the important bit is the legal change in ownership rather than the value. In that sense, it's not too much different to peppercorn rent. Just buying a pier doesn't really do much, it's got to pass health & safety regs so it can open to the public, which in its current state it obviously doesn't! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• The council agreed in principle to hand over the pier's running to the trust, but only if it could pay £800,000 required for immediate repairs. — I think "hand over" would sound better as "transfer". Also, is "running" necessary here? If it is, I would still recommend changing it to "operation", or something else which sounds less colloquial.

I've rewritten this bit - see above Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• A proposal to restore the pier with a 60-metre (200 ft) ferris wheel failed after the backer went bankrupt. — Concerning the wheel's dimensions, what part was measured. Is it the diameter, circumference, or something else? Perhaps, also, "backer" could be changed to "investor" or "supporter".

The New Scientist source just says "complete with 60m ferris wheel" and that's it. The term "backer" is what the source used, maybe "investor" would also fit, but I'd prefer in that case to use the specific term in the source. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• The pier suffered structural damage due to the 1987 storms, and was cut off from the shore for safety reasons in 1991,[16] but the West Pier Trust continued to offer regular tours of the pier throughout the 1990s. — Could "cut off" be changed to "separated"? Also, it seems that "1987 storms" should be changed to "Great Storm of 1987", since the event was a storm (not storms).

Done. I remember the storm like it was yesterday, wondering if the apocalypse was happening..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• In 1998, the National Lottery pledged £14 million to restore the pier, but negotiations stalled between the West Pier Trust and a suitable partner, while the owners of the Palace Pier claimed unfair competition against the National Lottery. — I find it difficult to understand this sentence. First, it reads a bit like a run-on, so splitting it into two sentences would be good. Second, who was the "suitable partner", and why did they even need one if they already had 14 million pounds? Finally, why was the Palace Pier claiming unfair competition against the National Lottery? Were they complaining that the Lottery was engaging in unfair competition against them, or something else? I don't expect you to put all this information into the article, of course, but I need some clarification.

I've copyedited this bit. The Palace Pier were upset because they had kept the pier running under their own financial steam without any help from the National Lottery, and complained that having £14M of investment dropped on a competitor next door was not on. As for the grant, £14M of cash to restore the pier isn't really enough - you need to have a team that decides where the money is going to spent, who is going to do the work, and who will manage the projects. Otherwise you could be throwing money down a drain. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Decline and damage

• In December 2002, the pier suffered a serious partial collapse during a storm, when a walkway connecting the concert hall and pavilion fell into the sea. — Once again, since a pier is a non-living object, it cannot suffer, so I'd recommend rewording this phrase to "the pier partially collapsed during a storm".

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• The following month, a further collapse saw the destruction of the concert hall in the middle of the pier. — It seems a bit difficult for a collapse to see something, so "saw" would sound better as "resulted in".

I've reworded this - to avoid using "collapsed" twice I've put "fell over", as pictures of the pier at this time show the concert hall roof tilting to one side. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• On 28 March 2003 the pavilion at the end of the pier caught fire — For consistency with the rest of the article, replace "at the end of the pier" with "pierhead".

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• On 11 May 2003, a more severe fire broke out, consuming most of what was left of the concert hall, which reignited the next day. — This wording implies that the concert hall itself reignited, although it was actually the fire that reignited. This issue could be fixed by splitting the sentence in two and saying that "The fire reignited...".

I don't think it's too necessary to have that much detail, I've copyedited to say that the fire was on the 11 - 12 May. That should do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Finally, in December 2004, the Trust conceded defeat, after their plans were rejected by the Heritage Lottery Fund. — I don't think "defeat" is the best wording here; this was not some war, was it? Also, "Finally" seems a bit unnecessary in my opinion, since it seems to be editorializing the sentence. Last, there does not need to be a comma before "after".

If you were chairman of the West Pier Trust trying to get the thing reopened it might sound like a war! I've gone with "The Trust confirmed the restoration would not be going ahead" instead Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• The pier was partially demolished in February 2010, in part to make way for the planned i360 observation tower, and also over safety concerns. — The wording here sounds clumsy. Perhaps it would sound better as: "The pier was partially demolished in February 2010 due to safety concerns and to make way for the planned i360 observation tower.

I've reworded this. "Safety concerns" is a bit vague, and having read the rest of the article to this point, I think you could reasonably conclude that would be the case anyway, so I've taken it out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• There is a museum display of artefacts from the pier on the lower promenade as part of the Brighton Fishing Museum. — Is the museum on the pier's lower promenade, or are the artefacts from the lower promenade of the pier?

Not sure (I didn't write this bit). All I can say from the source is that bits rescued from the pier are in the fishing museum, so I've gone with that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Media appearances

• The Pier can be seen in several films, including Oh! What a Lovely War (1968)[11] and Carry On Girls (1973) which was filmed on the pier and in locations nearby in Brighton. — Decapitalize "Pier".

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nick Cave's novel The Death of Bunny Munro was set in Brighton in 2003, and mentions the West Pier on fire. My own feeling is that media details do need to be brief, but this sentence feels a little uncomfortable to me – "mention" is a word I dislike in formal writing, for some reason – and looking at what Nick Cave's novel actually says, it refers to the pier having been burnt down, rather than being on fire, as the present sentence suggests. Also, given that the causes of the fires are officially unknown (although there are theories among the locals!), maybe consider something like this: "In Nick Cave's novel The Death of Bunny Munro, set in Brighton in 2003, Bunny's son speculates that a fire may have been started on the pier by a seagull carrying a lit cigarette butt to its nest there." Just a suggestion, feel free to ignore it! By the way, that detail is on page 61 of The Death of Bunny Munro (ISBN 978 1 84767 376 3), do we need a ref for the novel in any case? Nortonius (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The actual source used is this Argus piece and says, verbatim, "The smouldering pier also provided a backdrop to Hove renaissance man Nick Cave's second novel". I'm not really a fan of "in popular culture" / "media" sections, but in this case the information does carry enough importance. However, "provided a backdrop" is far too vague for me to be able to conclude anything from it, hence the vague claim. I think what you've suggested is a bit too long; how about "In Nick Cave's novel The Death of Bunny Munro, Bunny's son speculates on reasons for the 2003 fires"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, yes! Although "speculates on a reason for the 2003 fires" would be more accurate. I'm not a fan of these sections either, mainly because they attract detritus, but I suppose they have their place. Nortonius (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, all done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)