Talk:Portsmouth Square pedestrian bridge/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 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.

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

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 00:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on this review over the coming days. As an initial comment, the formatting of most sources needs to be improved. Some are bare URLs, many others are just the URL and title without basic details like author/publisher/date, and per MOS:DATETIES all dates should be in mdy format. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kylelovesyou: Are you still interested in this GA review? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nah it's ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylelovesyou (talk • contribs)

Okay. I am failing the nomination (without prejudice) since there are unaddressed issues that will need fixed to get to GA quality. This does not preclude you or another editor from nominating it again in the future. Happy editing! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lede

Coordinates miss the bridge and need adjusted.
Is an exact date of opening available (ie from contemporary sources)?
The lede needs a rework to match the standards at MOS:LEAD. It needs to give an overview of the whole article, including history and design. There are some wording issues, notably the puffery of prominent architectural landmark and the use of "currently" (see MOS:CURRENT).
I would recommend reorganizing the sections - the design section should be first, then probably the use. The history makes more sense after the reader knows what the bridge is like. (As with some of these other comments, this is not a GA requirement, but a recommendation for improvement.)

History

The paragraph beginning A second redesign needs reworked - the first sentence doesn't parse, and the second sentence is awkwardly worded.
What group was the 2015 announcement from? A source is needed for it not being done.
Who are "some people" - see WP:WEASEL
The sentence about Sam Kwong is irrelevant - it doesn't seem like he is a subject matter expert whose views are notable.
Unless there are reliable sources specifically connecting safety at the nearby intersections with the bridge, that sentence should be removed.
Wikilink porte cochere
The final sentence of the section can be removed, as skateboarding is discussed in detail elsewhere in the article.
Only one image is needed for this section; I would keep the overhead shot and remove the view west.

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.