Jump to content

Talk:Chesapeake Bay Bridge/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 02:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lede

[edit]
  • The caption can be shorter; I suggest removing (Gov. William Preston Lane Memorial Bridge).
  • Please add alt text for the image (and all other images).
  • Under "Carries", remove everything after US 301. There's no need for that level of detail in the infobox.
  • Two of the other names do not appear in the text; they should either be removed or cited.
  • Total length does not agree with the text.
  • No need to specify how long ago the bridge opened; that's not relevant.
  • No need to specify different tolls in the infobox; $4.00 (eastbound only) should be fine.
  • Remove the superfluous locator map - it's been replaced by the integrated mapframe.
  • For an article of this length, a three-paragraph lede should be good. I would recommend adding about one sentence each about the previous ferries, the run, the impact of the bridge, and the future.

Proposals and ferries

[edit]
  • The first two sentences are contradictory: was the first proposal in the 1880s or 1907?
  • Combine the first two paragraphs.
  • A more reliable source is needed to replace source #4.
  • The fourth paragraph is entirely uncited.

Construction of 1952 span

[edit]

Notable incidents

[edit]
  • The first paragraph makes a bold claim of "often cited" with a single fluff-piece citation.
  • The second sentence should either be cited (if a single citation noting the multiple closures is available) or reworded, as the next two paragraphs do not mention traffic congestion from the closures.
  • In the third paragraph, remove "has" both times it is used.

Specifications and operations

[edit]

Structural details

[edit]

Traffic control

[edit]
  • First paragraph is uncited.
  • The fourth and especially fifth paragraphs here are very long. I would recommend simplifying some of the details; the exact criteria for two-way traffic and details of when to merge aren't really needed for an article of this scope.
  • There's a lot of images here, several of which don't really support the text in the section. For those images that are kept, please have them be default thumbnails (no size specified) and make sure that text isn't squeezed between left-aligned and right-aligned images. (I also recommend using {{clear}} and its directional variants to make sure that images stay in their proper sections.)

Tolls and fees

[edit]
  • This can be combined into one or two paragraphs.
  • All-electronic tolling began on May 12, 2020... is more clear than As of May 12, 2020.

Impact

[edit]

Future expansion

[edit]
  • Would you be able to add a map of the proposed crossing locations? There's no need to create your own map from scratch - {{Overlay}} or {{Location map+}} should work fine.
  • Both current images in this section are good, but would be more useful elsewhere in the article. The large panorama should go under the structural details.

See also

[edit]
  • No need to link to the two neighborhoods (if their relation to the bridge is significant, they should be in the text.)

Bay Bridge Walk and Run

[edit]

References

[edit]

All reference numbers here are from this version.

  • Refs 1 and 2 are permanent dead links. Can they be replaced with a live link (or archived links)?
  • There's a mixture of mdy and dmy dates. The former should be used since this is a US article.
  • Refs like 8, 33, 34, and 46 can probably have a proper website name (or just MTA as the published), rather than just the url.
  • Ref 45 has an error - looks like it should be {{cite news}} rather than {{cite journal}}
  • Date format on ref 47
  • Ref 48 is a permanent dead link.
  • Refs 56 through 59 are self-published sources; while they appear to be subject-matter experts, adding some non-self-published sources would be ideal.
  • I've done some of these, others might not be possible - Not sure what you mean by "proper website name," but I've added MTA as the publisher. Ref 48 may be unrecoverable and doesn't appear to be archived. 56 was replaced, I couldn't find an alternative for 57. Best source I could find for 58 was here, but it's not clear or in-depth on the subject matter addressed by the current citation. The info for 59 was outdated and I've updated it with a new citation. AviationFreak💬 23:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • Official websites should be the first external links
  • The two live videos can probably go on one line.
  • That 1950 study looks like it could be a useful citation, but that's not essential.
  • Authority control should go below the navigation templates.
  • Having the three upstream bridges in the template is rather awkward. I'd say just go with 695.

Overall

[edit]

I just made a few more copyedits. Great work on this article! Passing as GA. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]