Talk:Gallox Bridge, Dunster/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have this one to you within a day ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 20:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

"The bridge is in the guardianship of English Heritage" - this is mentioned in the lead but not anywhere else in the article

Added at the end of history.— Rod ^talk 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"below 'the castle at a point" - would be better linked fully as Dunster Castle

Done.— Rod ^talk 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead could be expanded slightly in order to summarise the article and comply per WP:LEAD. A little bit more can be mentioned about the bridge's history I think, for example "It was important for the transport of wool and other goods to market" could be expanded a little into how it dates back to 1222 and when the bridge was built etc

It already says 15th century for the construction but I've added a few words as suggested.— Rod ^talk 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Architecture section is a little short to pass the GA criteria, can it at all be expanded? By a sentence or two?

I'm still looking for more to add here.— Rod ^talk 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been back through the sources and added a few words, but I really can't find anything else on the architecture.— Rod ^talk 17:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref 4 is dead
The external link is dead too

I've fixed the linkrot but the expansion suggested above will take a day or two.— Rod ^talk 17:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod, that's OK, the expanion does't have to be anything major - I was thinking a little more detail could be added to meet the GA criteria ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 17:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

This is a well researched article and a compact one too. It is well written but I feel that it does not meet the comprehensivness part of the crtiera at this time, so I'll put this on hold until all of the above can be addressed. Thanks! ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 12:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thank you for taking the time to make improvements to this article, I think the architecture should be fine as I see the rest of the article is well researched and well written, so I think this passes the GA criteria. Well done on the extra work, looks like another Somerset GA! ☩JAGUAR ☩ 17:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the picture again and I've crossed this bridge several times! ☩JAGUAR ☩ 17:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]