Jump to content

Talk:Frank J. Wood Bridge/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:33, 29 August 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 22:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


This article requires a lot of work. It needs a complete restructuring and is riddled with grammatical errors; the newspapers should really be clipped; some of the spot checks suggest sourcing issues; and there is an acceptable, but mistagged, image. I would suggest the nominator read over WP:GACR again, and maybe even a few reviews of other transport GAs, to familiarize himself with the style concerns that come up in this field. If these issues cannot be fixed, the nomination will have to be failed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy changes

[edit]

Consider reorganizing this article so that information on prior bridges comes first, then design, chronological history. A lot of this is just sliding pieces into new places in the article.

  •  In progress

Lead

[edit]

The lead section could stand to be longer as a summary of the article's contents. See MOS:LEAD for sizing guidance.

  •  In progress
  • "Known" does not need to be capitalized.
    •  Done

Citation for "bridge was built to last 100 years" is actually an article that talks about the yet to be built replacement bridge. It does not say anything about how long the FJW bridge was built to last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biketopsham (talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  In progress

Design

[edit]
  • Capitalize the R in "River"
    •  Done
  • No need to italicize the old bridge title. I see you do this in a few other places; don't. Most of your italic uses here are unnecessary.
    •  Done
  • "where" should be "were"
    •  Done
  • Consider

Namesake

[edit]

Does all this information belong here? At most, two sentences about Wood would be merited in context, not a full biographical lead.

  •  Done
  • "bridges namesake" should be "bridge's" and even then is awkward.
    •  Done

Earlier bridges

[edit]
  • The sixth bridge, In 1897 The Topsham-Brunswick Bridge was built with a heavier iron, but was condemned in 1927 after another flood This sentence is a wreck.

New bridge

[edit]

Correct the case of the section

    •  Done

NRHP

[edit]
  • Consider a title like "Eligibility for historic status", though a larger reorganization might change things.
    •  Done
  • Introduce MaineDOT as "the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT)" on first use.
    •  Done
  • After an initial review of the Bridge, in 2016, from the Maine DOT and the Federal Highway Administration, stating the bridge would not be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, in 2017, they reevaluated and determined that the Frank J. Wood Bridge is eligible The italics are not needed, nor is capitalizing "the Bridge". I'd change "is" to "was".
    •  Done
  • "While most of the features associated with the interurban line are no longer withstanding, the standard width and height of the bridge, set specifically to accommodate the interurban line was adequate integrity to convey that significance". Who said this?
    •  Done
    • Also, the period belongs in the quote because it's a quote of a full sentence (MOS:LOGICAL).
    •  Done
    • There should be a comma after "line" to complete the appositive.
    •  Done

Controversies

[edit]

The contents here should be reorganized in chronological order with the rest of the article.

  •  In progress
  • On December 16, 1985 Harry Crooker and Sons construction company staged a protest on the bridge objecting to the long lines of traffic that accumulate.
    • Needs a MOS:DATECOMMA after 1985. This recurs.
      •  Done
    • Is "Construction Company" in the company's name?
      •  Done
    • Add a comma after "bridge".
      •  Done
  • Capitalize the R in Route 1 (or preferably write U.S. 1)
    •  Done
  • No need to capitalize "Federal Judge".
    •  Done
  • "bridges eligibility" that's "bridge's", possessive
    •  Done
  • "84,000 US dollars" just say "$84,000"
    •  Done
  • The state, in their court ordered re-assessment for rehabilitating the bridge came to the same conclusion (January 2023), that it would be cheaper to build a new bridge and started the process for construction companies to bid for the job.
    • Hyphenate "court-ordered"
      •  Done
    • Move the (January 2023) into prose. maybe In January 2023, the state released its court-ordered reassessment of the bridge's condition and came to the same conclusion, that it would be cheaper to build a new bridge, and started...
  • "Injuction" should be "injunction"
    •  Done
  • Comma needed after "litigation" (CinS)
    •  Done
  • No comma in "October 2023"
    •  Done

Newspapers.com

[edit]

While not technically required, as one of the largest users of Newspapers.com on Wikipedia, I'd like to ask you to clip the citations you have in your article so they have /article/ URLs instead of /image/ URLs. This way, non-subscribers can view the relevant content. I can provide assistance if needed. You are at least editing page numbers

  •  Not possible Unfortunatly you have to be a registered user and pay a monthly supscription to make clips for newspapers.com. I use the service through the Wikipedia Library portal so that I don't have to pay the fee.
    • You should be able to at least create a free account with newspapers.com and then be able to log in from the TWL proxy and clip? I will go ahead and clip anything that needs clipping. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for errors: "McQuire" is actually "McGuire" (the article comes from the Portland Press Herald).
    •  Done
  • The Sun-Journal 1931 article has a Daily Sun masthead (Newspapers.com sometimes has issues of this type, from experience).
    •  Done
  • The 1935 obituary was published not in the Evening Journal but in the Daily Sun.
    •  Done

Spot checks

[edit]
  • 4: Information on the post-1936 rebuilding is NOT in this article. Why aren't the carloads of ballast in the river mentioned? The reference is missing its page number (9).
    •  In progress
  • 7: Steel grid deck installed in 1972. checkY
  • 17: Two-way traffic on the new bridge won’t begin until the latter part of 2025. Additionally, work on new parks on both sides of the new bridge is not expected to finish until early 2026. I would reword the article to mention traffic in 2025, completion including parks in early 2026. checkY
    •  In progress
  • 18: The author's last name is Hammond.
    •  Done
    • On this one, clip both from pages 1 and 10 (not 16!) and wikilink the 10 in |pages=.
      •  Done
    • It appears that other contractors were involved, not just Crooker;
    •  In progress
    • I would say there were 130 cars instead of a car's "entire fleet".
      •  Done
  • 27: ...after the Federal Highway Administration again agreed that rehabilitating the 90-year-old span wasn’t feasible due to high costs checkY

Earwig complains about mostly the phrase "The Frank J. Wood Bridge" and our quote from the determination of eligibility, though this is not yet attributed completely aside from being in quotation marks.

  •  I'm not sure what this means:
    • It means no copyright violation issues.

Images

[edit]

The three images from the present-day are all CC-licensed. The 1827 Bridge engraving is PD-old. The 1937 tram image is acceptable but incorrectly tagged on Commons. The work was published in 1966 without a copyright notice and would qualify for {{PD-US-no notice}} on Commons, not the library's own "no known restrictions" tag.

  •  Done

Encouragement: Add alt text.

  •  Done
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_J._Wood_Bridge/GA1&oldid=1172881937"