Talk:Hartland Covered Bridge/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: B3251 (talk · contribs) 00:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 06:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

General Comments

I'll be adding notes as I go. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the prose is unfortunately not up to the standard required by GA, particularly around concision. I've listed some problems below, and I'd like to see them addressed within a week before moving forward. I want this article to get to GA. If you need help with addressing these issues please ask, because I am here to help. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave Of course. You've made great observations in this review already and I'll make sure to address your concerns soon. Thanks, B3251_(talk) 12:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Prose and content

• , otherwise known as Main Street) unnecessary detail, not notable enough to be included in topic article.
• Before the bridge, crossing the Saint John River in the area was previously done by ferry: "previously done" redundant
• Before the bridge -> "Historically in the area,"
• The need for a bridge in Hartland emerged as a political issue in the province remove, redundant.
• among other improvements to infrastructure irrelevant
• the establishment of redundant
• took place -> began
• In a newspaper dated May 13, 1896, Dibblee clarified that "if we could not get a grant for the Hartland bridge I would go into opposition." We have already said Dibblee was advocating for the bridge, this is repeating it. If the information is to be integrated, Dibblee can be said to have strongly advocated.
• At the time, $400,000 was allocated template:inflation as it's not clear if this is a significant amount
• A letter to the editor for the Hartland Advertiser dated December 22, 1897, highlighted the Hartland bridge issue being -> "in 1997, the Hartland bridge was"
• On October 9, 1899, the Hartland Bridge Company issued a notice stating that they have deposited plans with the Minister of Public Works (then-Henry Emmerson) to build the bridge.[13] Later that month, a public notice for an invitation to tender issued by the Hartland Bridge Company dated October 19, 1899, appeared in The Royal Gazette on October 25, calling for contractors to submit sealed tenders for a bridge crossing the Saint John River in Hartland to be constructed. Tenders were to be marked "Tenders for the Hartland Bridge" and were due November 20, the following month.

Who is the Hartland Bridge Company?

issued a notice stating that they have Unless you think they didn't submit plans, there's no reason to include this.

Who the Minister of Public Works was is too detailed.

Same with the next bit, attribution is unnecessary unless you don't believe them. It's fine to just say an invitation to tender for construction of the bridge was released on October 19, 1899 by the Hartland Bridge Company. Maybe if you want to, say they had a month.

I won't be going through the whole article like this unfortunately, as I have other nominations to attend to, and I can't rewrite the whole article. I hope you can apply these principles, of the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct to the rest of the page. The page has a particular issue with concision, giving many unnecessary details. Please perform a copyedit keeping the WP:GACR in mind, and ping me when you're done so I can review; please ask as many questions as you need while you work, but I won't be able to keep the review open if after my final review I feel the article is still a long way from the criteria, per WP:GAFAIL. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Rollinginhisgrave, I'm starting to work on copyediting and cutting down the clutter. I'm not finished, but I will ping you again when complete. Just wanted to notify you that I have started working on this. B3251_(talk) 15:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Rollinginhisgrave, I am  Done copyediting and I feel that I have done an adequate amount of de-cluttering and removing of unnecessary details to warrant a better reviewing experience. You can see all of my changes here. Thanks, B3251_(talk) 18:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks B3251, getting on this now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey B3251, great job on the copyedits, you've made a lot more progress. When making changes can you note next to the comment why things weren't implemented from now on? And just use Y when you've done it. I will get you to go over the bits that you didn't do as on my first sweep I was being quite relaxed and a lot of issues are remaining. Thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, apologies. Thank you for the patience and for the remainder of the review I will mark any new notes individually when complete. B3251_(talk) 16:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Hartland Hill Bridge Road listed sources disagree over what to call this. Hartland Bridge Hill Road appears more reliable.
• Town of Hartland isn't RS given it's marketing the bridge

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave I've made most changes, I'll continue on if anything else is needed but I wanted your approval first. Please let me know what you think! B3251_(talk) 16:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Space for Questions:

• .
• .
• .

Starting over

Lede

• measuring approximately -> "at"
  •  Done
• the Canadian province of New Brunswick -> New Brunswick, Canada
  •  Done
• Construction on the Hartland Covered Bridge began in late 1899 following initial planning that began the previous year, though the topic of constructing a bridge in Hartland had been discussed as a political issue years earlier.
  • using began twice in the same sentence
  • Did it? Materials hadn't even been shipped until the next year. Just say when it was opened, after planning and construction began in ....
  • discussed as redundant
  • had been discussed as a political issue years earlier This implies that it wasn't the result of political activity as it was all in the past, which I understand it was.
• The bridge was opened in 1901 and initially was a contrast to what it is today; it was used as a toll bridge until being purchased by the provincial government in 1906, and the bridge had not been covered until 1922 after it was rebuilt following weather-caused structural damage in early 1920. this is not grammatical and it is too long.
  • B3251: Grouping these two together. I provided a rewrite and will await for your approval.

Skipping ahead to a section that I have left to you to do a copyedit of.

• heavy rainfall caused a freshet as well as ice to damage the west side of the bridge
• Around this time, it wasn't around this time, it was directly in response to it.
  •  Done
• considerable of a menace He didn't say this. The newspaper is summing up his position.
  •  Done. Let me know if the change I made is alright or if you'd rather me just remove it.
• the legislature passed 142 acts, one of which guaranteed it is very unnecessary to say how many acts were passed in April 1920.
  •  Done
• Around this time, redundant
• unsuccessful efforts were made to temporarily replace the bridge with a ferry were there? The source is from a few days after the bridge was damaged, and two months before it was actually built. The minister is saying they may be building a ferry. This is why we rely on secondary sources.
  •  Done Removed.
• In June 1920, the N. B. Contracting Company offered a reward for any debris found from the bridge. irrelevant
  •  Done Removed.
• , giving the bridge its covered status redundant
  •  Done Reworded the sentence to "A roof was added to the bridge that same year". I'm unsure of whether this should be specified that this is when it officially became a "covered bridge" because the fact that it is covered is important due to its length.
• A 2001 letter to The Daily Gleaner also mentioned that the wooden piers were converted to concrete. this is not RS.
  •  Done Removed.
• In April 1925, repairs were made to the bridge's floor to address noise complaints,[55] which continued to be reported later that year.[56] last clause redundant if you begin with "starting in"
  •  Done
• the town of redundant
  •  Done Removed.
• which serves as one of the reinforcing strips on the interior of Voyageur, the guitar at the heart of the project. much too much detail.
  •  Done Cut back on detail
• On July 4, 2012, in honour of its 111th anniversary -> For its 111th anniversary on July 4, 2012,
  •  Done
• the town considered still Hartland?
• In August 2012, the town considered installing traffic lights at the bridge following local concerns. I personally wouldn't include this if nothing came of it.
  •  Done I don't think anything came of it, so removed.

Sources

• 60 and 74 disagree on when the walkway was built
  •  Done Changed to "mid-1940s". Let me know if this is OK.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: Pinging for review. Thanks again, B3251_(talk) 14:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I've gone to read over this again to review it and began making small edits so I wouldn't bother you with small edits. And then I made more. I spent a while on the lede as you can see here. We're in a fixloop, and it's inexplicable, considering I didn't see this in your work on Joseph Drummond to nearly the same extent. I'll fail it, and I hope another editor has more luck with it if you choose to put it back up for GA. I know you've put a lot of work into this. It's a lot better than it was. It confuses me more than anything. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

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.