Talk:Big Four Bridge/GA1

GA Review

Review is imminent Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 8, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article has good enough prose and flow for GA status, but there are a few specifics that should be adressed, as described below.

• The lead is too long for one paragraph, split it in two. Rewrite the sentence on the other passenger bridge that crosses the river.

 Done--Bedford ^Pray 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Include United States in first sentence and infobox.

 Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• The first ref does not state the length of the bridge; should find it somewhere else and link to it.

• Do you have this from one of the books? Can't find the length on the internet, and vital statistics must be references for GA.

  •  Done Found a reference; turns out the provided length was wrong. Good thing a reference was insisted upon. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Include the coordinates. You can find them in the first reference; use {{coor}}

 Done --Bedford ^Pray

• In the overview truss and rivet should be wikilinked.

 Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• The history section should be sectioned up, and other parts, like ownership, included in the history section.

 Done Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Electric cars are automobiles that run on electricity. Interurbans are interurbans; simplify.

 Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• Beware the difference between a en-dash and em-dash—only em-dashes should be used as punctuation.

 Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• Why is Spring Street Freight House a see also; either incorporate it into the article or leave it out—only intutitive articles should go under see also.

 Done, I explained reason for adding it on the page--Bedford ^Pray 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilink to President of Costa Rica and Indiana Department of Transportation.

 Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• The fire section is the only one that should have a thorough rewrite; several points need attention:
  • The first paragraph says everything twice, rewrite it to only say things once

 Done Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Conversions to metric are needed.

 Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• • Rewrite to remove the quotation, without actually using quotation marks or sourcing.

 Done Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Do not hope for things in an encyclopedia, rephrase.

 Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

2. Factually accurate?: Pass. All linked references verified.

• As a tip (not a GA requirement) I recommend using the {{cite}} template in inline reference; this avoids problems as were seen with all-bond references.

3. Broad in coverage?: There is not enough about the rail service on the bridge; such things as single/double track, freight usage are missing. At least one paragraph on this should be composed.

•  Done added a sentence.  Done

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?:

• Choose the best pictures, and remove the gallery. And there are better images of the bridge than the current infobox one; put the best at the top.

 Done --Bedford ^Pray 23:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Removed forced thumb size; forcing the view preferences is a bad habit.

 Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• All images are free, but the following should be moved to the commons. This bot does it in a jiffy; create a category for Big Four Bridge on commons too.
  • Image:Big4Bridge.JPG
  • Image:Old Big 4 Bridge.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Bridge Belle of Louisville.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Fire VI.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Fire II.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Fire V.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Fire VII.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Bridge Belle of Cincinnati.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Bridge Delta Queen.jpg

Is this necessary for GA? Putting the pics on commons makes it harder to use, in my experience.--Bedford ^Pray 23:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have confused something (bear with me, this is my first GA review). But in my opinion leaving pictures off the commons creates great problems the day someone wants the pictures on another language project; personally I spend hours searching for pictures on the Norwegian and German Wikipedia and transferring them to the commons. Out of mere curiosity, how does pics on the commons make them hard to use? Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is harder to keep track of what images are available if on Com mons. Plus, if for some reason some idiot wants an image deleted, I won't know until its too late if its on commons. Plus, should the image be featured on the main page in the future, it is easier for all concerned if its not on commons.--Bedford ^Pray 17:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

It actually is quite good, just a lot of picky small stuff to look at, a fair bit I did myself. Good work so far:) Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to ask, if everything is pass, then what is the holdup? I see what I can do.--Bedford ^Pray 22:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I was a bit imprecise, but point 1 and 6 are not pass, but it should be a fairly simple task in my eyes. Half the stuff I did while going through the review, just making you aware of the corrections. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination pass

I have passed this article as a good article, based on all criteria that were questioned have been seen to.

Further work would be needed for FA status; mainly related to the flow of the prose. At current the article is well written, but not all sentences flow smoothly enough for the folks at FA; in my eyes this is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and one may want to contact someone at the League of Copyeditors to do this kind of work. I absolutely recommend checking out User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a, a great guide getting better flow in the prose—it helped me at least. There are only a few unreferenced claims, fix those and FA status may be in reach. Also consider rescanning the scanned picture; it is good, but the scanning is not (a minimum requirement would be that it is straight).

Finally I would like to congratulate all participants on the work of creating a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have a scanner at the time, so I took the picture using my digital; camera. If I can get my scanner working (new computer), I'll rscan the image. Thanks for reviewing.--Bedford ^Pray 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)