Talk:Woolwich Ferry/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 15:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The first two external links appear to be dead.

I've removed both. Replacement pages are available, but they are now being used as references in the article itself. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

I'm rarely very convinced by these In popular culture sections, particularly when they're written as lists, as this one is. I'd prefer to see it retitled In popular media and all the paragraphs merged with an intro along the lines of "The Woolwich Ferry has featured in film and television", or something like that; having a list is just a trivia magnet.

To be honest, if it was just down to my personal preferences, I'd remove the entire section (as you say, they are an invitation for casual editors to wander in and add trivia), but other editors have added these in good faith before I started work on the article and I managed to find sources for them. I've renamed the section "Media appearances" and done a bit of a copyedit. I'm not sure about The Professionals being cited to IMDB though, though all that is being cited is a claim that an episode features a shot of the Woolwich ferry. The only other sources I could find for there were fansites online. What do you think? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you, but it'll have to stay I suppose. The IMDB citation won't pass muster though I'm afraid. Eric Corbett 17:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the sentence out. My gut feeling is there might just be a "Best of 70s TV" book with this, but the fact that I can't even find a passing mention on a Google news or book search suggests to me it's not that important. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nearest alternative crossings

"If the ferry service is suspended owing to vessel maintenance issues or fog, pedestrians can use the nearby Woolwich foot tunnel." But presumably they have that option whatever the maintenance or weather issues are?

In fact that's what most people do - the pedestrian deck is generally empty (though I am not a reliable source). I've copy edited this bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the map, as it appears to show the DLR terminating some way from the ferry, just south of London City Airport.

Facepalm That'll be because the map dates from late 2007, before the DLR extension to Woolwich Arsenal was built! Obvious now I think about it. Let me run off and generate an updated version from OpenStreetMap. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done an updated map that now shows the DLR extension. SVG graphics aren't my speciality, but this has been out of date for well over five years, so somebody should do it! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early services

"Research has found a reference to a crossing running during this time between North Woolwich and Warren Lane." Research doesn't find anything, it's researchers who do that. Also, what period of time does "during this time" refer to? The preceding sentence only says that there's been a ferry since the early 14th century. Do you perhaps mean "at that time", as in the early 14th century?

Okay, I've gone back to the original source. That says the earliest reference it finds is in state papers in 1308, which implies (but I think that's all it does) it's been running since the early 14th century. (Smith p.11 also says "there has been a ferry at Woolwich since the 13th century", but I think that's a mistake) However, since we've already been told in the opening paragraph that a connection across the river had been here for some time before that, I think the best thing to do is to stick straight to what the source says re: the 1308 state papers, and leave it at that. Have a look now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine to me now. Eric Corbett 16:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... which had taken over toll bridges in west London. It seems a little strange to me to see "west London" rather than "West London", similarly with "east London" in the next sentence.

Taking a random sample of news sources, it seems that there is an equal mix of lower case and caps. Presumably it depends on whether you consider "East London" to be a specific place (similar to "Nothern Ireland"), or "east London" to simply mean an eastern area of London. I've done a random sample of articles, but again there is a mix (some of which is weighted towards caps simply by being other proper names such as West London Line and West London Synagogue. How can we move forward with this? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can probably leave it as it is then. Eric Corbett 16:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The free service was instigated by Sir Joseph Bazalgette using powers granted in the Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers) Act 1885." I'm not sure what "instigated" means in this context.

The source (Smith p.12) says "Sir Joseph Bazalgette was the engineer in charge of design and construction", so I've done with "lead" instead and reworked this sentence. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modern service

I don't see the relevance of the final paragraph at all, a strike that never happened.

Do you think this falls foul of WP:RECENTISM and hence should simply be taken out? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do, particularly as there was no strike. Eric Corbett 15:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem - removed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It jars with me a little to see the death of the 19-year-old jammed into the corporate history. Is the implication that the death was a reason for transferring the contract from Serco to Briggs Marine?

The death was originally in a separate section, but as part of a general clearup I moved it into here. I've split out the Briggs Marine transfer into a separate paragraph and bolstered it a bit with some more from the original BBC News source. I see no evidence that the death and the company transfer were in any way connected. The trouble is now that the end of this section reads a bit too much like a bland "In year 'x', 'y' happened (new paragraph) In year 'a', 'b', happened. (new paragraph)" etc etc It could do with a bit more "flow" to it; I'm just not exactly sure how just at the minute. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's only a couple of sentences it would sit more easily with me in a separate Accidents section. Seems a bit disrespectful to shoehorn it in like that Eric Corbett 15:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to (temporarily) add a ^{[citation needed]} tag for "many (emphasis mine) cross-river foot passengers take the foot tunnel beneath the river" as the next source along does not actually say that. There are claims for it on travel and London blogs, for sure, but I'm just trying to find a good authoritative source for this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet

"The current three vessels (built in Dundee in 1963 by the Caledon Shipbuilding & Engineering Company to replace the previous four paddle steamers used since 1923) ..." The previous paragraph lists only three replacements, not four.

I don't think it's particularly important to mention the number, as the prose listing them is immediately above this, so I've copyedited this out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future

"Were this to be built, the ferry service would probably be withdrawn as it would no longer be required. Are we talking about the bridge or the tunnel? Seems inconsistent with what was said in the previous paragraph: "As long as there is a demand for a vehicle ferry it is unlikely to be discontinued, and it would require an Act of Parliament to do so.

Neither source actually says that the proposed East London crossings would definitely stop the ferry service. It's a reasonable assumption that it would be discontinued, but as an analogy, in 1950 we couldn't have said that the Severn Bridge (which was planned even back then) would definitely result in the Aust Ferry closing down. So I'm treating this sentence as original research and removing it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Crew members working on the ferry have said the ferry will continue to operate for as long as no alternative crossings are available. One member said "They talk about a bridge or a tunnel, but they just can't agree. There will always be a ferry at Woolwich". I'm not sure we can consider the opinions of anonymous members of the crew to be reliable sources for the ferry's future can we?

I've replaced this with the opinion of TfL's planning manager (from the same source), which I think we can agree is a little bit more authoritative. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Tolls cannot be levied on the ferry without changing the Act of Parliament." Is that the 1811 Act of Parliament? Probably best to say so if it is, as it's been a while since it was mentioned.

All the source says is "Current legislation prevents any tolls at Woolwich". A TfL Rivers Presentation source elsewhere says the current Act of Parliament dates from 1885, so I've dropped that in. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few little things left to iron out, so I think we can put this on hold now. Eric Corbett 19:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just the map thing to sort out, and I believe we are done, unless there's anything else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Corbett: - I think I've addressed all issues, can you take another look? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think we're done here now, congratulations! Eric Corbett 12:51, 15 March 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.