Talk:Forth Bridge/GA2

GA Review

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

I'll take this one on. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The article is in a very good state and will need little work to achieve GA status.

The lead is fully cited, using refs 1..10, of which 3 and 5-10 are used nowhere else. Please move all refs into body of article and ensure that lead summarises article without introducing new claims. Lead only needs reffing if claims are highly contentious, which I doubt applies here.

Some paragraphs are uncited, I'll mark these up.

The "Popular culture" section is a bit of an indigestible list. I'd suggest merging it with the "Banknotes, coins" section to give a "Representations" section (or similar), arranged in 3 or 4 paragraphs, to cover 1) notes and coins 2) in the media 3) general culture. Trivial items should be dropped.

~~You might wish to move the "Visitor centre plans" and "World Heritage Site status" alongside the "Representations" section, in which case these would form subsections of an "In culture" section.~~

In his 1917 book On Growth and Form, D'Arcy Thompson compares the Forth Bridge (pictured p. 245 in the abridged edition) with the skeleton of an ox (pp. 243–246, with figure of a bison skeleton). As the book is PD-1923 you might like to quote a bit of it, but at least it deserves a mention. Here's a sample: "In a typical cantilever bridge, such as the Forth Bridge (Fig. 106), a certain simplification is introduced. For each pier carries, in this case, its own double-armed cantilever, linked by a short connecting girder to the next, but so jointed to it that no weight is transmitted from one cantilever to another. The bridge in short is cut into separate sections, practically independent of one another... In the horse or the ox, it is obvious that the two piers of the bridge, that is to say the fore-legs and the hind-legs, do not bear (as they do in the Forth Bridge) separate and independent loads, but the whole system forms a continuous structure."

References

~~MacKay is not used and should go in the Further reading.~~

~~Winchester in the External links also belongs in Further reading.~~

~~All web citations require an accessdate.~~
Which part of WP:WIAGA requires accessdates? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is basic stuff.

WP:WIAGA points to WP:MOS which points to WP:Citing sources which states:

Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include: ...

date of publication
the date you retrieved (or accessed) the webpage (required if the publication date is unknown)

Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Typically" does not mean that it's mandatory. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"(required if the publication date is unknown)" does mean a date is mandatory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added dates or accessdates for the ones that didn't have any. Transport Scotland's website seems to be down just now, those links remain unchecked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidkinnen (talk · contribs): there has been no activity here for 2 weeks. If you need more time (are away on hols?) please let me know; otherwise I shall have to mark the review as failed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs): Apologies I knew there was something I had overlooked. I will get around to addressing the issues raised this week, and will advise you once I have made ammendments. Davidkinnen (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidkinnen (talk · contribs): another week has passed with no sign of activity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ref to Turing's article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" in Mind shows page numbers 433–460 for just one quote. Can this be narrowed down? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This reviewer agrees with Wikipedia practice that a single page range is acceptable for all but the longest scientific papers. Where an issue is devoted to a lengthy review paper (say, 100+ pages) then it's reasonable to demand an exact page. The Mind ref is an intermediate case and I shall not insist upon a change there. If anyone wishes to provide the exact page that's fine with me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs): I have addressed all points raised except the uncited material - I cannot find a relevant citation for those still uncited. Should I just remove? Davidkinnen (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possible last resort; the intermediate stage is to seek similar facts and cite them, rewriting as necessary. On "all points", do you not think D'Arcy Thompson's discussion noteworthy? It's a very widely read and influential book in its centenary year. He worked of course not far away in Dundee. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) The D'Arcy Thompson discussion is noteworthy. Do you have the relevant citation so I can add this? I have looked for similar facts but they all seem to be in tertiary sources. Davidkinnen (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've inserted it pretty much "as is" which I think works fine, but feel free to adjust it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) I see no reason to modify what was added. When I get back later I will have a look at the remaining uncited material and see what I can do. Davidkinnen (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) There are still 4 uncited claims that I cannot find alternatives for, or any sources to support. We may just have to remove these, unless someone has access to a source that verifies the claims. Davidkinnen (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've removed them. Obviously if sources can be found, details can be restored. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) Does this article need more work to achieve Good Article status? Davidkinnen (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidkinnen (talk · contribs): See Images below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:Are these "just a few splashes", Mr. Churchill?.jpg appears to be incorrectly licensed on Commons, as it plainly isn't self-published. This needs to be fixed with appropriate licences, or the image removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted it out on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

I'm satisfied that with the work done the article is now well up to the required standard and a worthy GA. Congratulations to the editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]