This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Onel5969, by a checkmark in your list of 55 articles, I think this article is asserted to have been improved. Maybe it has been changed, but I am not sure if this article is to be considered adequately improved or not. Without analyzing the current article vs. sources available very closely, though, I'll say I don't like this. Jargon and incoherence in writing suggest too close paraphrasing, such that this appears both plagiarized and inaccurate, as if non-understood jargon was revised willy-nilly.
It still includes a copyright violation photo (which, yes, will be deleted soon by action at Commons, but if this and other articles are being fixed, the known-to-be-copyvio photos should be removed in the process.
Reference to a PD template directly suggests to me that text was copied in / "incorporated". If that template cannot be removed in an "improvement", i.e. if there is no assertion that the copied-in text has been thoroughly removed, then "improvement" has been inadequate IMHO as discussed elsewhere.
And, I'm not sure the PD claim is valid... akin to the situation with NRHP documents, HABS/HAER documents may not be public domain.
About sourcing the 2nd source is the same as the 4th source, but they are presented as different. And they omit the photo that was part of the NRHP registration (which would be remedied by use of the version available at NARA). The third source's URL is bad.
Although i dislike wp:TNT-type reasoning enough to have composed counter-essay wp:TNTTNT, perhaps it would be better to have this literally deleted to remove the copyright violations and plagiarism and other problems.
To be critical of actual text, look at a few examples:
"In 1922, a major upgrading of the highway between Adamana and the Arizona state line with New Mexico." -- Not a sentence!
"AHD engineered a design for the structures, the design for the bridge near Allentown called for a medium-span deck truss with twenty-foot cantilevered ends." What does "engineered a design" mean? That AHD designed something or not, like did they bring about a design from some non-AHD source? What is the connection between the two phrases? It doesn't make sense.
"Due to a realignment of U.S. 66 in 1931, the Allentown bridge, along with the Sanders bridge, were no longer on the route." - Not grammatical.
"Today the bridge only carries local traffic on the Navajo Nation." By citation to a 1987 source?
I am impatient, perhaps, but I am not willing to try to fix all this. It seems a mess. Therefore I feel it necessary to either have this article deleted, or to have it completely improved by someone else, or completely strip this down to be clearly innocuous (and pretty much useless and poor, too, but at least not seeming to claim any merit as a work written by the Wikipedia authorship collective). I am going to strip it down now, for at least the time being.
Onel5969, I would be interested to see an alternative, perhaps composed at a subpage here, say Talk:Allentown Bridge/rewritten which would be better, or to have discussion about how my judgment might be too harsh or what. But having brought my attention here, I don't want to leave without this being fixed enough to leave in place even if you and i do nothing more. --Doncram ( talk, contribs) 10:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Onel5969, by a checkmark in your list of 55 articles, I think this article is asserted to have been improved. Maybe it has been changed, but I am not sure if this article is to be considered adequately improved or not. Without analyzing the current article vs. sources available very closely, though, I'll say I don't like this. Jargon and incoherence in writing suggest too close paraphrasing, such that this appears both plagiarized and inaccurate, as if non-understood jargon was revised willy-nilly.
It still includes a copyright violation photo (which, yes, will be deleted soon by action at Commons, but if this and other articles are being fixed, the known-to-be-copyvio photos should be removed in the process.
Reference to a PD template directly suggests to me that text was copied in / "incorporated". If that template cannot be removed in an "improvement", i.e. if there is no assertion that the copied-in text has been thoroughly removed, then "improvement" has been inadequate IMHO as discussed elsewhere.
And, I'm not sure the PD claim is valid... akin to the situation with NRHP documents, HABS/HAER documents may not be public domain.
About sourcing the 2nd source is the same as the 4th source, but they are presented as different. And they omit the photo that was part of the NRHP registration (which would be remedied by use of the version available at NARA). The third source's URL is bad.
Although i dislike wp:TNT-type reasoning enough to have composed counter-essay wp:TNTTNT, perhaps it would be better to have this literally deleted to remove the copyright violations and plagiarism and other problems.
To be critical of actual text, look at a few examples:
"In 1922, a major upgrading of the highway between Adamana and the Arizona state line with New Mexico." -- Not a sentence!
"AHD engineered a design for the structures, the design for the bridge near Allentown called for a medium-span deck truss with twenty-foot cantilevered ends." What does "engineered a design" mean? That AHD designed something or not, like did they bring about a design from some non-AHD source? What is the connection between the two phrases? It doesn't make sense.
"Due to a realignment of U.S. 66 in 1931, the Allentown bridge, along with the Sanders bridge, were no longer on the route." - Not grammatical.
"Today the bridge only carries local traffic on the Navajo Nation." By citation to a 1987 source?
I am impatient, perhaps, but I am not willing to try to fix all this. It seems a mess. Therefore I feel it necessary to either have this article deleted, or to have it completely improved by someone else, or completely strip this down to be clearly innocuous (and pretty much useless and poor, too, but at least not seeming to claim any merit as a work written by the Wikipedia authorship collective). I am going to strip it down now, for at least the time being.
Onel5969, I would be interested to see an alternative, perhaps composed at a subpage here, say Talk:Allentown Bridge/rewritten which would be better, or to have discussion about how my judgment might be too harsh or what. But having brought my attention here, I don't want to leave without this being fixed enough to leave in place even if you and i do nothing more. --Doncram ( talk, contribs) 10:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)