Talk:Southend Pier

Minder end titles

Surely Arthur Daley has lost his (valuable) wallet and not his (replaceable) cigarette lighter which causes the duo to proceed the 1 mile or so back up the pier looking for it. Exactly what is lost from inside one of his pockets isn't explained but he doesn't go to light his cigar just before noticing and he has the cigar in one hand or the other all the way down the pier (indicating that it is already lit) though it never enters his mouth. They weren't using the railway to come down and nothing occurs to indicate that they should use it on the way back up either - in fact its very existence on the pier is often obscured by the written credits.

[Untitled]

Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver was conceived on Southend Pier in August 1974. removed by Chowells: Trivia - this sounds very much like a hoax, if someone can provide a verifiable source feel free to add it back

Fair enough to delete this piece of nonsense but I would be intrigued to know what would count as a "verifiable source" in this case! Flapdragon 23:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Lol. Good point. No idea. It really does sound extremely unlikely to me. AFAIK there is no hotel on SOuthend Pier. So how would he be conceived there? How would his parents know for sure that it defeinitely occurred there? Why and who would have publicised it? Why can't it be verified on the web (using google), the source of all rumours? I'd be very hesitant about adding it back, to be honest. chowells 23:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually I thought I had heard that rumour somewhere, but thinking about it realised it was almost certainly in this very Wikipedia article. (Incidentally I believe it is actually possible for conceptions to take place even where there is no hotel, but we needn't go into that here...) Flapdragon 23:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no earthly reason why this couldn't be true, but there are probably only two (or perhaps three, if you include Jamie himself) that could verify it! My parents both came from Southend, and I know from their reminiscences that such events weren't unheard of :\ Lynbarn

I like reading this article without all the Rs in pier. -Wagner, Denmark

rail route diagram

I'm not convinced that this article really needs the rail route diagram, but if it is to be there, should the station names not be reversed, with the (northern) shore station at the top? Regards, Lynbarn 14:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I second both points.Jimjamjak (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the diagram should be removed as it conveys no information that can not be described by the text of the article, and does look rather like a joke. JRawle (Talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I just took WP:BOLD and removed it today. Si Trew (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Progreso, Mexico,

The longest pier in the world is in Progreso, Mexico. Its 6.5 KM long. This article needs to be corrected.

NO - The article states: it is the longest pleasure pier in the world I don't believe there is any amusements or recreational activities provided at the end of Progreso pier, although it is an impressive structure. Technically, Progreso isn't actually a pier, it is at most a mole, possibly a caisson breakwater (the newer section,at least). Perhaps you could add an article on Progreso pier? Regards,Lynbarn (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Turner

Is the information about Ernest Turner's accidental death in any way notable? I'm not denying that to local historian this may be of interest, but to a reader of Wikipedia, I think that this may just be trivia. I haven't looked, but I imagine that there have been several deaths on the pier since 1931 - I don't think that a list of all of these would be any more interesting, unless they resulted in some change to the pier structure etc. It seems that in the case of poor Mr Turner, no changes were made to the railway or the pier - I suggest removal of this item.Jimjamjak (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be notable as the first and only death on a pier railway - certainly on this pier railway. I would therefore suggest that it stays. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lynbarn. By was it "the first and only death on a pier railway". I'd suggest referencing that, and then it may be notable. I'm not currently satisfied that the information on Turner's death meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Please provide evidence that it does meet these criteria.Jimjamjak (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Pier head station reopened

I'm not sure of the actual date of re-opening but by August 2010 the pier head station had been rebuilt and put back into operation as an island platform with a track on either side though, like the passing loop, the points are padlocked and only the western track and one train were operational. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The new station opened lastSeptember -I've updated the article to that effect. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

V2 Missile attack on pier

I have heard from a couple of sources that during WW2, a V2 rocket struck the shore-end pier pavilion, went straight through, and embedded in the mud under the pier without exploding. Does anybody know if and when this actually occurred? There was also mention of damage to one of the railway stations, and that some rolling stock was destroyed. This may have been a separate incident, but either or both - if true - are probably notable enough to include in the article.

Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Length of pier

I note that the length given in the lede differs from that in the infobox by about 20m - which is correct? Geopersona (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably the infobox as the other will be a rounding error. And a further figure (2100m) in the text (plus extension of 99m) gives a third different length. Geopersona (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Southend Pier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 13:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this one. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

1. GACR#1a. Well written: the prose is clear, concise and understandable.
2. GACR#1a. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
6. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for linking.
7. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
8. GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
9. GACR#2a. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
10. GACR#2b. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
11. GACR#2b. All inline citations are from reliable sources.
12. GACR#2b. All quotations are cited and their usage complies with MOS guidelines.
13. GACR#2c. No original research.
14. GACR#2d. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
15. GACR#3. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
16. GACR#4. Neutral (NPOV).
17. GACR#5. Stable.
18. GACR#6a. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.
19. GACR#6b. Images are relevant to the topic with appropriate captions.

I'll be using this list to complete the review. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that the article is stable. I think the images are excellent – all are appropriate, illustrative and free of any copyright concerns. I've read the lead section which looks good in itself and I just need to make sure it adequately summarises the narrative. Will read the narrative next. Hope to be back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've checked the criteria and given all of them a tick. It's an excellent, interesting and informative article that has been thoroughly researched and well written. I think you should take it to WP:FA because it must be in with a real chance of success there. It has passed GA easily and I'm really pleased that I can promote it. Very well done and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• @No Great Shaker: Many thanks for this, it's great that you think it is now easily at GA standard. It would probably be worth mentioning for anyone checking this in future that a comprehensive peer review was done by yourself already and so the GA designation you have allocated is on the back of that. On your point about FA, it would be great to have an FA article that I could attribute (even in part) to myself; while I have many GAs "under the belt" (so to speak), the featured level is still a "trophy" I have yet to touch! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)