Talk:Dukes Meadows Footbridge

Dukes Meadows Footbridge has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 14, 2023. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

Passed -MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 19:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I'll be reviewing this one (and maybe another considering how short it is). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! And on another one, yes please!! Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is all good; no typos or issues here.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with mos standards, but just a note: you might want to add the date of opening to the lead. Noted. I think the year is sufficient; the actual date was delayed at least twice, so the precise day it finally happened is of marginal significance. I try at all costs to avoid the blow-by-blow breathlessness of "On 17 September it was announced that Mr Famous was going to give a cameo appearance at the fundraising cocktail party before the ... ".
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources are properly formatted in a "References" section.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most sources are directly to press releases from local authorities, and those that aren't are from newspapers or a construction firm that helped build it. All good here!
	2c. it contains no original research.	All claims cited to a reliable source; statements to primary sources (e.g. press releases from development firms) are simple enough to not be OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no plagiarism/copyvios.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Lead is all good and rest of article is good too.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout; the whole article nicely summarizes everything.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not much room for bias in an article about a bridge, but still a neutral article nonetheless!
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No wars since creation.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images properly licensed under CC
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I have an issue with the numbers of images. The long image under "Requirements" is squishing the text to the right just a bit too much for my liking, but I don't think shrinking it would make it very visible.; perhaps crop it further and then shrink it. I've centered it, so it doesn't squish anything. Furthermore, there's many photos/videos under "Design" and "Construction": six photos under design and eight photos plus a video under construction. In my opinion, this is a bit much, especially the sheer number of media under construction. If I were to choose, keep the following: File:Pump and Pilings for Thames Path footbridge pier under Barnes Railway Bridge.jpg and File:Dukes Meadows Footbridge newly-cast concrete footings.jpg under design, since they both show an essential part of the design, and for construction, keep these: File:Dukes Meadows Footbridge - ramp span in place.jpg and File:Dukes Meadows Footbridge west span ready to fit.jpg, since they show a major part of construction and the piece of the main span. Done. I've left in the welding photo as there is plenty of room and it's a lively 'action' scene showing the actual construction process; and obviously it can't be repeated. All good now
	7. Overall assessment.	~~@Chiswick Chap: We're close to being done here, this is already a very high quality article. See above, and we'll otherwise be ready! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply] This article is all good now. Very nice!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.