Talk:Covered Bridges Today/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to take on this review and will be making a first reading in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added another source which I just found and fixed some prose up. I do have the book on hand, and I purchased it some time ago, but I have not scanned or uploaded any pictures from it for this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First impression

It seems to me that the article is lacking in certain aspects that I would expect to find in a GA about a book. If you look at some other book articles that are GAs, such as Bad Pharma, A Night to Remember (book), The Diamond Smugglers, Who's Your City?, The Clean Tech Revolution and Cutting the Mustard (book), you will see what I mean. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the author, what qualifications does she have for writing on the subject, where did she obtain her information, etc?

"Krekeler became interested in studying covered bridges, and their lore and history in college. Krekeler obtained her Master's degree in Historical Geography from the University of Cincinnati." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where and when was the book published?

"The book was written by Brenda Krekeler and published by Daring Books in 1989." Infobox contains United States, but I could put that in the body as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could have a picture of the cover of the book above the info box. Done
The infobox could contain more information.

Huh.... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

No action has been taken on the matters mentioned above. I believe that criterion 3a is not met by this article and that its coverage is insufficiently broad. It fails to address some main aspects of the topic, in particular it provides insufficient information on the book's author or provide details of the book's publication history. If the article is expanded and these points are addressed, it can be renominated for GA in the future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: I did not even know you added more to your review since you never placed it on hold and I did not get pinged. Your first impression part is covered already in the beginning and such, but the author got her information from researching it. I tried to dig up more about the author, but I did not find much more - but changes that I could make or have made were not given time because I never got the hold review! I didn't ignore it, just didn't know. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did some additional work, added a few things I missed from last pass and expanded the details on the book a bit more. The review differs from other books in compared to in a few ways, textbooks and controversial subjects generate more press then a catalog of historic bridges. There is nothing "controversial" or "debatable", no political sides or motives advanced - just a humble record of an increasingly rare structure. The additions I made will certainly be of use to the general reader or scholar who wishes to consult this book - thereby being aware of the contents, coverage and impact it has. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]