Talk:Samson Occom Bridge/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 23:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC) GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: I will take this. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Partial first review

1. Well written: a. prose/copyright: Needs work Generally, I copyright as I go, because this saves time and makes the review go smoother. In this case, however, I feel that the article needs a heavy copy-edit, which I am not going to do. Among the issues that need to be addressed: The article is exceedingly choppy; it reads as if you had a list of bullet pointed facts, and built paragraphs by turning each one into a separate sentence. Ideas that should flow together aren't together. In your lead, you have a sentence about who built it, then one about construction details, then one about where it is, then another sentance on construction details, and then a sentence about who built it. Why not use sentences on the same area into one, like "It was built in 1936 by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, then known as the Connecticut State Highway Department, as a Works Project Administration program.", or at least group them together? While it's not quite that bad if you actually count them, it feels like half of the sentences start with the words "The bridge". I know how hard it is to build an article about a proper noun without sounding repetitive, but you need to figure out a way to cut usage of "The bridge" in half. Whoa...hopefully resolved. That was horrible. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC) b. MoS compliance: 2. Accurate and verifiable: a. provides references: Needs work I believe that your second source is this. If that's true, you should link to it. Additionally, I think that the title you used isn't the title that they're using. Thanks for actually finding that! I've added the details and converted it to a template. b. proper citation use: c. no original research: 3. Broad in coverage: a. covers main aspects: b. focused/on topic: 4. Neutral: 5. Stable: 6. Image use: a. license/tagging correct: b. relevant/properly captioned: 7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer: a. images that should have alt texts have them: b. general catch all and aesthetics:

Comments after the initial review: I will do a full review after the listed concerns are addressed. Ping me when you're ready. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Second round review comments:

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Needs work

• "Stone arch bridges rarely require structural rehabilitation, but an alternative solution to rehabilitation exists in the form of a concrete slab imbedded above the arch." - The second half of this needs to be reworded: What exactly is being described? (What is this procedure? Can it be linked to?)

• @Sven Manguard: - I think I resolved it. An alternative solution to structural rehabilitation exists in the form of an imbedded concrete slab which would take the weight off the bridge. I believe this is essentially building a roadway/bridge above the Samson Occom Bridge, retaining the appearance and physical structure without actually bearing the load of traffic. Best I gathered from the text. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references: Acceptable

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

c. no original research: Acceptable

3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects: Acceptable

b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Acceptable

5. Stable: Acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them: N/A

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable

Comments after the second review: Fix that sentence and then ping me. It's ready otherwise. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

PASSED All concerns addressed. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)