Talk:East River Bridge (Sheet Harbour)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Acefitt (talk · contribs) 04:07, 26 October 2016 (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.	~~Made some changes to the prose in an effort to be more concise and a bit more fluid in the text. Definitely need a second set of eyes on this.~~ Good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Not sure if US dollar amount on the cost for the bridges is required, also thinking sections 2.1-2.4 could be combined into 1 or 2 at the most. Seems unnecessary for such small subsections.
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.	References sufficiently cover all prose and the infobox.
	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).	As above.
	2c. it contains no original research.	As above.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Concise and addresses the topic at hand.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Concise and addresses the topic at hand.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No major changes.
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 fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

@Acefitt: Should I add a second infobox, so that the old bridge and the new bridge have separate infoboxes?

No. There's not enough prose to support it. -- Acefitt 21:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Acefitt: Yes, that makes sense. Thanks. JakeR (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Acefitt and JakeR: I did a quick copy-edit and except for one redundant phrase the prose seems fine to me. Given that both the subject and the sources are Canadian I don't see a need, per MOS:CURRENCY, to indicate that the dollars are Canadian or to provide US equivalents. I think in lieu of the second image (showing the demolition) it might be helpful to include a map showing the realignment of the local roads to support the new span, but that's just a suggestion. Mackensen (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look, I'll go ahead and end this and I'll add the map to my to-do list. It's been open for so long already. -- Acefitt 18:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Acefitt and Mackensen: There is a map of the changes at [1], but I'm pretty sure it isn't fair use. JakeR (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Acefitt and Mackensen: Also, thank you very much to both of you for accepting this article as GA! This means a lot to me, as it is only the second article I significantly helped achieve GA! Once again, thank you so much! JakeR (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of the map, basically I'll overlay that map onto OpenStreetMap and trace it. It takes no time at all. -- Acefitt 19:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. JakeR (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]