Talk:Van Tran Flat Bridge/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:08, 6 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) 21:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this article (reviewed version) is not yet ready for GA. While any individual issue would be addressable within the scope of a review period, the sum of them means the article needs a significant reworking to be GA quality. Once these issues are fixed, the article can be renominated without prejudice. I don't want my listing of these issues to come across as rude; I hope it's a useful blueprint to improve the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Length and coverage: While the GA criteria don't have a length requirement, they do require broad coverage. Some potential aspects that I would recommend adding would be the origin of the names, further details about the bridge design and dimensions, why it was constructed, any significant events prior to the 1940 repairs, why the bridge was closed and why it was repaired and reopened, and whether it's been evaluated for possible listing on state or national registers. I would suggest you look for contemporary press coverage that may flesh some of these out; you would be eligible for WP:LIBRARY access to several newspaper sites if you're not already using it.
Relevance: Conversely, the criteria requires that the article be focused on the topic. The nearby locations don't appear to have any connection with the bridge other than mere proximity and don't need to be listed. (The adjacent park may be worth mentioning, but its months of operation are not.) The location of the bridge is relevant (and could be expanded with another sentence of context), but the mailing address with ZIP code is not. The false claim of NRHP listing on the placard isn't relevant in the prose, though it would be a worthwhile footnote to any information about whether it's been evaluated for register listing.
Support for claims: Some of the information in the article isn't supported by the given source, such as originally named The Motts Flats Bridge. The article claims this is the oldest covered bridge in the county, but one of the sources says Bendo Bridge was built the same year. Source 6 doesn't have any relevance to the claim about the placard. Various sources give the length of the bridge as 98, 103, and 117 feet, and none of them mention any shortening of the bridge.
Citations: Several citations (4 and 8) have incorrect titles. Cite 7 is user-generated content. Cites 6 and 9 are duplicate. Cites 1 and 5 appear to be duplicate listings from the same cite; it also appears the site is largely self-published; I don't see any citations or evidence of editorial oversight (that would catch basic errors like the duplicate listing). Most cites are missing information such as author, publisher, and/or date.
Other issues: The infobox is lacking proper handling of other names (using the other_names parameter), plus basic details like what is carried, reopening date, and dimensions other than length. The coordinates are incorrect. Images are in a gallery rather than placed with the relevant prose. One external link is dead, and the other a personal blog that doesn't give any information not already in the article.

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.