Talk:Vidyasagar Setu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 20:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking this review. What I think I'll start with is fixing some of the image sizing/layout problems for myself and then I'll see about the content and the criteria for that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear to me that the "Features" section should be merged with "Design" and the number of images in the first three sections reduced. I suggest that the evening sunset and one of the images in the "Design" section do not add anything to the article.

Done. Four images have been removed

The standard of grammar throughout is that of Indian English, which is needlessly confusing to the audience, in my opinion. Although ENGVAR allows for regional variations, it's designed to cover a different set of issues to these:

"It is toll bridge..." - should be "It is a toll bridge..."

Corrected

"with capacity to handle more than 85,000 vehicles in a day" - a bit odd to talk of a capacity (a maximum) that is "more than" something. "designed to handle more than..." perhaps.

Corrected

"activity .[5]" should be "activity.[5]" (no space)

Corrected

As well as these issues in the first half of the article, the mixture of technical jargon and what appears to be poor grammar (by standards of International English) makes the construction difficult to read or understand:

"were founded over large diameter piles" - "founded over"?

Corrected

"manufactured Crane" - should be "crane"

Corrected

"Dydwidag" - "Dywidag" I think

Yes, changed

The problem is that I think you're taking most of this straight out of what is a technical manual designed from engineers. It needs to be reworked to be more accessible to an intelligent but non-specialist reader. Using alternative sources would help greatly.

Yes, I will try to make it more non-technical

References #2 and #7 should be formatted more consistently using () brackets rather than {}.

Corrected

There seem to be some notable areas missing: any post-construction history - incidents, repairs or alterations, or other bridges opening nearby; and the current daily usage of the bridge - I don't think the capacity can be taken to be the actual usage, as implied by the infobox.

Yes, I will add if I can get some reliable references

I'll have a look at image copyright when some of my other concerns have been addressed. I'm placing the article on hold for at least seven days. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have made corrections as suggested. I will add more in the next few days and also try to improve the language to standards of International English.--Nvvchar. 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some more edits. I have also added sections on Further improvements, Traffic survey and Other bridges in the vicinity on the Hooghly River. Please see if they are acceptable. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 11:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are improvements, but the examples I gave above about grammar were only indicative, not exhaustive. Take "Fixed end slab seal type expansion joint 115 millimetres (4.5 in) is used for the fixed ends." for example. "115 millimetres (4.5 in)" is just sitting there, I'm unclear whether that's a height or width or some other measurement, and what grammatical role it is playing here. I'd also expect it to be "joints... were" to match "fixed ends".

There are other simple errors, still: "pylons,bridge", " {road ", "[10]; ", "repirs; "

The new information is good, but be better structured, perhaps a "Post-construction history" section to replace "Further improvements" and "Traffic survey".

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the changes suggested. I am not able to see these two "{road ", "[10]; for effecting corrections. i would appreciate if you could kindly do it. Let me know if there are more changes and corrections to made. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 16:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to do more corrections? Pl let me know.--Nvvchar. 08:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll be making further comments if necessary shortly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some odd quotes - composite action of the deck grid." for example. I don't understand why they're quotations and not running prose. Speaking of which, Criterion 1 reads "the prose is clear and concise". There are some parts which I can see to opportunity for straightforward improvement: "The actual work on the cable-stayed bridge (then the longest span bridge of this type of bridge in the world) started on 3 July 1979, with the construction of the well curb on the Calcutta bank end." would be better said as "The actual work on the cable-stayed bridge started with the construction of the well curb on the Calcutta bank end on 3 July 1979, becoming the longest span bridge of this type of bridge in the world". "A specially designed Crane", "the High-density" - why the capitals?

Modfied

"Electronic Toll collection system" - "An electronic toll".

Corrected

"{road cum rail bridge)" - "(road-cum-rail bridge)"

Corrected

"and commissioned on" - "and was commissioned on".

Done

Other areas are more complicated: what does "followed by the next successive tiers." mean? I suspect, but you must check, that you mean "The ~~first~~ base element of the pylon was a grouted bed (of a non-shrink type) followed by ~~the next~~ successive tiers". "of self-climbing type" I think might be better part of "A specially designed self-climbing [link?] crane".

Done

The article is heavy going at the moment. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my compliance meets the detailed review. Thank you.--Nvvchar. 14:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you look over the recent changes (which I think were helpful, but were not mine) and add the references as indicated. Many will be repeat citations but the new arrangement means for clarity of reference they should be provided in at least most of the places indicated. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding me. I have now fixed references to all tags.--Nvvchar. 15:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some tweaks to the lead and I'm passing the article. Sorry it's taken so long, but that's the way the cookie crumbles, so to speak. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edits

I did a few copy edits to the article. Please check that there are no inadvertent changes of meaning. Here are a few things I noticed:

According to http://www.hrbc.in/projects1.htm construction began in 1978 but the article quotes another source and gives a specific date in that year. Presumably this is correct but could it be checked?

The correct date is as given in the imopratan year wise events published in the book by Bhattacharjee. Page 272 of the book gives this reference to the date which has been motioned in reference 7 of the artcile.

The article says that Vidyasagar Setu is a toll bridge with free bicycle lanes. It also says that it has footpaths. Are the footpaths also used as bicycle lanes or are these separate lanes or is one of the footpaths used as a free bicycle lane as with the Sydney Harbour Bridge?

I think both are bike lanes. They are named as N5 –A and N5-B from the Calcutta end and as S5-A and S5-B from the Howrah end in the tender document page 10 of HRBC here[1]. Hence we have to presume that the same lanes also serve as foot paths.

Are "lifts inside pylon structures" simply "lifts (elevators) in the pylons"?

Yes. Corrected

Pylons made of 4 metres (13 ft)×4 metres (13 ft) steel boxes would be better expressed as

Pylons made of 4 × 4 metre (13 x13 ft) steel boxes

Changed

Which usage should be used: Calcutta or Kolkatta (Calcutta)? Whichever it is, it should be used consistently.

The original name was Calcutta which was changed to Kolkatta a few years ago. It is diamabuage page now. However I have calrified in the lead section.

Michael Glass (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the copy edits. They are all fine and no confusion is created by the changes made. I have also replied below your review observations. I have now complied with all observations. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 06:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]