Talk:Division Street Bridge (Rhode Island)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a compact article. I'll finish this by tomorrow hopefully ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• The only major concern I could find with this article is the length of the lead section. I think a few more sentences regarding the bridge's history and and design would make it comply per WP:LEAD easily, thus meeting the GA criteria
• "Built in 1875-1877" - is this meaning that construction started in either 1875, 76 or 77 or was the bridge being constructed throughout those years? According to the infobox it was built in 1876
• "of the unity of the two neighborhoods coming together as the Town of Pawtucket" - why is Town capitalized here? Unless it's a formal name, and I could be wrong...
• The first half of the Current state does not have any citations
• "under the newly formed Town of Pawtucket" - when did the Town of Pawtucket form? Is this old or contemporary?

References

• No dead links
• Ref 4 is missing an access date

 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

On hold

Looks like good GA potential here. It's a good looking article, with the only real concern being the shortness of the lead. If all of the above can be fixed, then this should have no problem passing the GAN. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days, although it won't need that. Thanks! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 12:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Jaguar Expanded the lead. Fixed all references. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thanks for taking care of that! The article has improved significantly. Regarding the date of construction, I assume the approximation is there as the date was never recorded, but I'm happy for a minor detail like that to slip this GAN. It's backed up by two sources as well. Anyway, this article now meets the GA criteria, well done ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar That date is a span - according to one record it was engaged in March and construction began in October 1875 and completed in 1877. Either way, 1875-77 is accurate because the completion month and opening is not listed. I clarified it a bit though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)