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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Sammi Brie ( talk · contribs) 22:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
This article requires a lot of work. It needs a complete restructuring and is riddled with grammatical errors; the newspapers should really be clipped; some of the spot checks suggest sourcing issues; and there is an acceptable, but mistagged, image. I would suggest the nominator read over
WP:GACR again, and maybe even a few reviews of other transport GAs, to familiarize himself with the style concerns that come up in this field. If these issues cannot be fixed, the nomination will have to be failed.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
22:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Consider reorganizing this article so that information on prior bridges comes first, then design, chronological history. A lot of this is just sliding pieces into new places in the article.
The lead section could stand to be longer as a summary of the article's contents. See MOS:LEAD for sizing guidance.
Citation for "bridge was built to last 100 years" is actually an article that talks about the yet to be built replacement bridge. It does not say anything about how long the FJW bridge was built to last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biketopsham ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Does all this information belong here? At most, two sentences about Wood would be merited in context, not a full biographical lead.
Correct the case of the section
The contents here should be reorganized in chronological order with the rest of the article.
While not technically required, as one of the largest users of Newspapers.com on Wikipedia, I'd like to ask you to clip the citations you have in your article so they have /article/ URLs instead of /image/ URLs. This way, non-subscribers can view the relevant content. I can provide assistance if needed. You are at least editing page numbers
Two-way traffic on the new bridge won’t begin until the latter part of 2025. Additionally, work on new parks on both sides of the new bridge is not expected to finish until early 2026.I would reword the article to mention traffic in 2025, completion including parks in early 2026.
...after the Federal Highway Administration again agreed that rehabilitating the 90-year-old span wasn’t feasible due to high costs
Earwig complains about mostly the phrase "The Frank J. Wood Bridge" and our quote from the determination of eligibility, though this is not yet attributed completely aside from being in quotation marks.
The three images from the present-day are all CC-licensed. The 1827 Bridge engraving is PD-old. The 1937 tram image is acceptable but incorrectly tagged on Commons. The work was published in 1966 without a copyright notice and would qualify for {{ PD-US-no notice}} on Commons, not the library's own "no known restrictions" tag.
Encouragement: Add alt text.
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Sammi Brie ( talk · contribs) 22:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
This article requires a lot of work. It needs a complete restructuring and is riddled with grammatical errors; the newspapers should really be clipped; some of the spot checks suggest sourcing issues; and there is an acceptable, but mistagged, image. I would suggest the nominator read over
WP:GACR again, and maybe even a few reviews of other transport GAs, to familiarize himself with the style concerns that come up in this field. If these issues cannot be fixed, the nomination will have to be failed.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
22:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Consider reorganizing this article so that information on prior bridges comes first, then design, chronological history. A lot of this is just sliding pieces into new places in the article.
The lead section could stand to be longer as a summary of the article's contents. See MOS:LEAD for sizing guidance.
Citation for "bridge was built to last 100 years" is actually an article that talks about the yet to be built replacement bridge. It does not say anything about how long the FJW bridge was built to last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biketopsham ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Does all this information belong here? At most, two sentences about Wood would be merited in context, not a full biographical lead.
Correct the case of the section
The contents here should be reorganized in chronological order with the rest of the article.
While not technically required, as one of the largest users of Newspapers.com on Wikipedia, I'd like to ask you to clip the citations you have in your article so they have /article/ URLs instead of /image/ URLs. This way, non-subscribers can view the relevant content. I can provide assistance if needed. You are at least editing page numbers
Two-way traffic on the new bridge won’t begin until the latter part of 2025. Additionally, work on new parks on both sides of the new bridge is not expected to finish until early 2026.I would reword the article to mention traffic in 2025, completion including parks in early 2026.
...after the Federal Highway Administration again agreed that rehabilitating the 90-year-old span wasn’t feasible due to high costs
Earwig complains about mostly the phrase "The Frank J. Wood Bridge" and our quote from the determination of eligibility, though this is not yet attributed completely aside from being in quotation marks.
The three images from the present-day are all CC-licensed. The 1827 Bridge engraving is PD-old. The 1937 tram image is acceptable but incorrectly tagged on Commons. The work was published in 1966 without a copyright notice and would qualify for {{ PD-US-no notice}} on Commons, not the library's own "no known restrictions" tag.
Encouragement: Add alt text.