Talk:Big Stan (drill rig)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll be reviewing this. I anticipate we will have this finished by the end of the weekend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

I apologize for slipping past my self-imposed deadline; stuff came up in my off-wiki life and I didn't have time to work on the review at all over the weekend. I will start working on it now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
No remaining concerns. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
No remaining concerns. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References format is acceptable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
References appear reliable and the article has sufficient citations to meet the GA criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
I cannot find any instances of original research. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
I spot-checked references 2 and 5 and compared them to the article, and found no issues. I also performed an Earwig check, which found nothing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
I see no further issues with scope. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
I do not see any issues here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Having read the article, I see no issues with neutrality. The article maintains a neutral, encyclopedic tone throughout. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Article history shows steady improvement, no issues here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
We have one image, licensed appropriately. This may be a situation where a fair-use image would be desirable, if we cannot find any freely-licensed photos of Big Stan. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Caption and image are fine. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All comments addressed, passing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

Check for missing unit conversions, I see tons used without a metric conversion.

Done

Drill rig should be linked the first time it's mentioned in the body, and not in the last section.

It already is in the first sentence. Perhaps more clarification is needed. Etrius ( Us) 19:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link First National Bank Tower in the body.

Done

There's a lot of numbers being thrown at the reader in the last paragraph. Have you thought about using a table to convey that information?

Done

The lead is a bit short, consider expanding a bit.

Done

You have "Big Stan" in quotation marks in one instance, and not with quotations everywhere else. Be consistent.

Done

Tractor-trailer is linked twice in the same sentence.

Done

Big Stan can uniquely be split into two pieces for transport that are designed to be transported independently. Consider rewording as "Big Stan can uniquely be split into two pieces which can be transported independently."

Done

Consider adding a photo of one or more of the projects Big Stan has worked on, such as the Benicia–Martinez Bridge.

Not done, I'd like to avoid MOS:SANDWICH and I don't think a gallery of previously worked on projects would really add much. I was actually in contact with someone who has pics of the drill rig, but we're still figuring out. I have the images but the owner ghosted me before releasing the copyright. :(

Done Etrius ( Us) 19:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I've got. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings Hopefully that's everything. There, unfortunately, isn't a thriving drill rig enthusiast group on Wikipedia, so I fashioned the table similar to Byford Dolphin, an oil rig, hopefully it'll work. Everything I didn't add to the table should already be in the infobox. I was worried about putting too many images together but it solved itself. Etrius ( Us) 20:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes. I really like the table, it's a much clearer way to present the information. I'm happy to pass the article now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TAOT!! Thanks for taking this up. It's alright if your review is delayed, IRL comes first. Just let me know what improvements can be made, whenever you're able to. For whatever reason I didn't get a talk page notification, which is probably due to ChristieBot currently undergoing open heart surgery. I'll ping @Mike Christie:, so it's on their radar. Just ping me when you're finished, I'll keep the tab open as well just to make sure. Cheers, Etrius ( Us) 20:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping -- I had a look and I think I found and fixed the problem. I'll keep an eye on the "On review" statuses and make sure a talk page notice goes out for the next couple. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus: Placing this on hold, just a few comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]