Jump to content

Talk:Barangaroo ferry wharf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barangaroo ferry wharf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to article

[edit]

Discussion point for @Rhodes88:'s recent changes to the article. I concede to Rhodes' assertion that the infobox parameters can be kept and left empty for potential future uses, and completely agree with the past/current tense updates to the article, obviously. However, I do disagree with a number of other things, as a lot of content was removed. Firstly, though, why is "design" part of the "History" section? I don't think I need to say much; these sections definitely do not belong together. Secondly, this is the second time Rhodes has tried to near-completely remove content related to the publicised death of a worker at the site and the controversy over OHS conditions during its construction. It is a massive part of the wharf's history and reputation, and thus needs to be documented as such. There is no reason to just dismiss it as "puffery" or "unencyclopedic", without elaborating on what you mean.

The mention of the reference to the Cross Harbour service in the lead paragraph, described by Rhodes as "future services, not notable enough for lead, covered in body', is important because it kinda is what the wharf was built for. The quote boxes are important in their own ways; the quote from Gladys is an important state of purpose from a government official responsible for the wharf, on what the rationale for the wharf was. Giving the reader some insight into the motivation of the people who commissioned the wharf's construction. The quote from the CMFEU is important in describing in greater detail outside the constraints of encyclopedic writing, the fatal incident that occurred on the wharf. Rhodes additionally states that "details of bus timetable changes for wharves miles away [is] not relevant." However, it is important when you're trying to detail the short-term effect of the wharf's opening on the entire transport network was. I've reverted all of Rhodes' changes from the first sentence of the lead down to the last sentence of the "Design" section for now, pending further discussion, to a) to avoid an edit war, and b) carry own building upon the existing article, which I had left off earlier in the day. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 09:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article is suffering from being longwinded. Lots of things being explained in 100 words that could be said in 10. Not helped by sound bites from sources (transport minister, union leader, architect) that are not neutral. The 'puffery' description was fairly apt. Also some of the what was planed to happen vs. what actually did happen text needs to be updated. My 2 cents worth on the specifics raised above:
Whether it belongs in the history section is debatable, but the design section should chronologically go above the construction section given that process occurs first.
The OHS incident is not encyclopedic. Industrial accidents much like car accidents, while very sad are generally not notable. By way of comparison, 16 people died during the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the one sentence written on the matter on that article is all that is needed. Imagine how ridiculous the Pacific Highway article would be if every fatality was reported. Most of it is just reporting what was due process, i.e. police and workcover investigating, mandatory urine tests, minister offering condolences etc. And other irrelevant details such as the victim's personal circumstances. If the contractor had its contract terminated or a landmark legal case resulted, then a longer section would be justified, but with no evidence of this happening, only a brief mention is warranted. The suggestion that it was reported by the international media is misleading. Just means that overseas agencies picked it up off the wire, don't think the BBC or CNN sent a news team to cover.
The 'allegations' of breaches, are just that and thus shouldn't be included. That there were allegedly 1,500 incidents would indicate every cup of coffee spilt has been included. A contractor wouldn't be allowed to rack up anything near that number of serious breaches before having its contract terminated. Just grandstanding from a union.
Details of minor changes to 2 bus services at other wharves is trivial and irrelevant to this article. We are talking a few minutes here and there, not a recasting of a large section of the network. The opening of any piece of transport infrastructure and resulting timetable change will always have knock on effects for connecting services along its route. Turingway (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Turingway: I've implemented your suggestion of putting the "Design" section first. Seems to make more sense to talk about the wharf itself first rather than its background and history. The peeps working on music articles mostly disagree on the structure of description before history, which is where I borrowed the mentality from when I originally structured this article, so yeah. There's a passage I completely forgot to remove in "Background", "The wharves are now expected to open in 2017.", which I have since removed as well. The usage of "international" was supposed to be "national"; simple brain fart that I failed to pick up before, my bad. Other than that, I still think it's at least important to note of the controversy surrounding the wharf during its construction. As I said before, its a big part of the wharf's history, so I think it deserves a lot more than just a sentence. 16 people died on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, but only a sentence mentioning merely that it happened is all there is? As a reader, I'd like to know a little bit more about it without having to leave the page. I've removed both uses of {{quote box}} in the article as a concession, since it's obvious that they were quite the trigger for people concerned with WP:POV. Other than that, may I ask, how would you write a passage about the concerns, controversies and the incident that happened? I originally made use of six different sources for the paragraph, so evidently it's notable enough to be documented in some certain amount of detail. What would a paragraph on it written by Turingway look like? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 06:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that you are treating the fatality as a major part of the wharf's construction, when in the overall scheme it was relatively minor. While a death is a serious event, it was just an industrial accident and thus really only worthy of a brief mention, a sentence or two should be enough to cover. It did gain significant media attention on the day, but it wasn't ongoing. Something like the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Construction section, i.e. In late February 2017, during the latter stages of the wharf's construction, a worker was killed after being accidentally struck with a metal large header beam while working on a construction barge. If it had more far reaching consequences, such as the site being closed down for an extended period or McConnell Dowell having its contract terminated, then a larger section would be justified, but it appears that after the usual police / workcover / coronial inquiries cocluded, work resumed.
Have pulled out some of the sentences and elaborate on what I think the issues are:
  • 1) ...was controversial for many alleged occupational health and safety violations, which resulted in the death of a worker That the statement is having to be qualified by 'alleged' is reason enough not to include, if it can't be stated with reasonable certainty, then it shouldn't be included. See also points 2 and 9.
  • 2) it has been alleged by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union that over 1,500 incidents concerning worker safety have occurred on the wharf. The 1,500 incidents relate to the whole Barangaroo construction project, of which the wharf was only a small part. POV reporting as it is based on a quote from a trade union official, who is likely to be grandstanding, 1,500 is a lot of incidents the majority of which were probably relatively minor. It could include every time a first aid box is opened to get a band-aid.
  • 3) The man, a Maitland local in his 30s, was reportedly killed instantaneously, and was declared dead at the scene. Where the victim came from, his age, where he was declared dead, has no relevancy to the project.
  • 4) An investigation into the incident was initiated by SafeWork NSW and the New South Wales Police Force shortly afterward. Just reporting of standard procedures for any fatality.
  • 5) The accident also sparked attention from local and national media, whom emphasised the tragic narrative of the incident How the media reported is of little relevance, The attention from the national media just means interstate media outlets picked up the story from their Sydney counterparts. The Courier Mail or West Australian would not have had a journalist on the ground. And while coverage was significant on the day, it wasn't ongoing.
  • 6) ...the man being married and fathering a 14-month old son at the time of his death. More irrelevant details of the victim's circumstances.
  • 7) The crane's driver was subject to mandatory blood and urine testing afterwards. Again reporting of procedure.
  • 8) Andrew Constance publicly expressed his condolences over the accident, stating that he hoped that the government's agencies would "co-operate fully with all investigations into this very sad incident. Of no relevancy to the project, just reporting procedure, would only be notable if agencies said they wouldn't co-operate.
  • 9) The Maritime Union of Australia claimed that the accident was completely preventable, having been previously denied access to the site when they attempted to investigate reports unsafe work conditions, prior to the fatal accident. Again POV reporting relying on trade union official quotes. Would only be valid if sourced from a 3rd party, e.g. the coroner's report.
  • 10) delivery of streamlined passenger flows and a simplicity of functional layout" was contrasted with its identity, an "expression of Sydney harbour’s iconic maritime history and architectural form. Blue sky thinking from an architect sitting in a mood room.
  • 11) The timetables for the State Transit Authority bus routes 466 and 513, which service the Cabarita and Meadowbank ferry wharves, were also modified in accordance to the new changes. Minor changes to connecting bus routes at other wharves is trivial. Any timetable change will always have a flow on effect to connecting services. Would need to require changes of a large section of the network to be of note, such as when George St was closed a few years ago for light rail construction that required a major recasting of services.
There are a few other issues such as what was planed to happen, but didn't that needs to be replaced by what actually did. Turingway (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barangaroo_ferry_wharf&oldid=1205719214"