Talk:Lytham Pier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 00:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	A pity there are no images more recent than 1920.
	7. Overall assessment.

Citations

I don't understand the usefulness of the link to Google Books in the Easdown source, particularly as it's to a different version of the book than the one cited.

Not sure I follow? The book source used and the one linked is, to my knowledge, the same reference material. The link is not wholly necessary anyway, however as some books give previews from time to time of the relevant material, I figured it may be beneficial to some. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the fact that the two books have different publishers, so it seems possible that they have different page numbering. It's not going to be a problem for this review though. Eric Corbett 11:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have double checked, and I am quite sure the publisher is correct? On the google books link, the "about" page says Casemate Publishers yet the book itself internally notes Wharncliffe Books (immediately after "First published by.."), so I went with the one the book itself is printed with. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline

I think it's worth mentioning that at the time of the fire the pavilion had been converted into a cinema.

I have added this now, as well as additional info relating to other activities in operation around this time. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The entire pier was closed in 1938 ...". It seems that it remained open to anglers.

Have reworded to include. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historic cost conversions

This is my only serious remaining concern. "Despite some reservations, building work was completed ... at a cost of £5890 (equivalent to £516,813 in 2016)". Even on the face of it, it's ridiculous to suggest that an iron pier could be constructed for half a million pounds in 2016. The CPI isn't really appropriate when considering the cost of capital projects, for which the share of GDP is a better measure. So I'd suggest altering the conversion to "(equivalent to £{{format price|{{inflation|UKNGDPPC|5890|1865}}}} as of {{inflation-year|UKNGDPPC}})", which outputs as "(equivalent to £{{format price|{{inflation|UKNGDPPC|5890|1865}}}} as of {{Inflation-year|UKNGDPPC}})".

Template:Inflation/UKNGDPPC was deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 27#Inflation-related templates that were initially created by mistake, breaking this talk-page example. Nowiki it to clear {{error}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the same logic applies to the first two conversions in the Decline section as well, although the third one – the compensation paid to Harry Kaniya – is probably OK as it is, using the CPI. But you need to be careful about overly precise conversions, such as the "equivalent to £84,529 in 2016". It's impossible to be that precise about equivalent historical values.

Fair enough - I have amended those suggested. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments @Eric Corbett: I have made further changes now as suggested, though I see you have made many, many changes yourself, so much so that at one stage I thought you had forgotten you are the reviewer ;) Please advise your thoughts now. I can't find any photos later than the 1920s, I guess perhaps because it was from this point that its decline started. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have I upset you by copyediting your article as I was going through the review? If so, I'm sorry. Eric Corbett 22:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No not at all. Whilst I was rather surprised at the extent you went to in order that it is brought up to a higher standard (rather than requesting I undertake any necessary amendments), it's all good. It's a collaboration, afterall! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This review is now closed as a pass. Eric Corbett 22:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:59, 1 January 2018 (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.