Talk:Blackledge River Railroad Bridge/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. While you wait, why not spare a thought for the other nominees, and conduct a review or two yourself? This provides excellent insight into the reviewing process, is enjoyable and interesting. A list can be found here Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Resolved
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

A straight-shooting article written clearly and comprehensively, described by two very useful images, that will definitely be promoted.
The sources appear to match what is written in the article
Three comments about readability, which is why I haven't marked the article as promoted straight away:
- Done I feel the structure would benefit from "The first bridge" and "The second bridge" (subheadings 'construction', 'fate') to make it clear there were two bridges
- Done The lead could be improved if it was reworded about the existing bridge, and the second paragraph about the old bridge (as the old bridge is the historical part), it was a little confusing on first read as the first part of the lead, which normally talks about the article articles subject, launches straight into the history of the first bridge.
- Done I'd be grateful if you could briefly state what the criteria A and C are in the 'fate' section to give some context
no need One additional comment, the first source, which states ". The bridge is located in Airline State Park and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1986." is a link to the parent website.

Overall a well-reading article. I look forward to hearing from you, --LT910001 (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't place this on hold so I didn't see it! I retitled the sections, but you seem believe the original 1870s bridge was historic. That was removed and abutments reintegrated in the circa-1912 bridge. So it makes no sense to break out of the chronology and flip them. However, I did fix the lead up some to make it more clear. The wooden bridge over the deck of the existing bridge is not a "new" bridge either - something which is rather unusual and digging up information on it was really difficult. Though the NRIS ref in the lead was a left over bit, it is actually an acceptable source because it goes to the database which you need to download and process to find out otherwise - I just prefer the actual form which lists the accepted date as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @LT910001: ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the changes. A comprehensive article that is easy to read, I'm promoting it to GA. Well done. --LT910001 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]