 | Fort Steuben Bridge has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 21, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional sources
editFirst, I think the ref I've named odot1 has more stuff in it for people who can read it better than I can. Second, the ODOT site I found it on has a LOT more potential stuff for someone who is interested in combing through it. I might do some of that myself. - Denimadept (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The whole collection of plans: http://www.historicbridges.org/ohio/fortsteuben/plans.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.179.128 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Fort Steuben Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 17:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Going to review this over this week.—– 17:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- You probably should tell the cost of the toll.
- Good point, found cost in 1940.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Improvements to the bridge were made in 1956." What type of improvements?
- Snippet I picked up doesn't say, all I could find was that improvements were made then!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ref 10 is cited improperly. See {{Cite press release}}.
- It's not essential though is it, even citation templates aren't compulsory. Perhaps User:ChrisGualtieri could address that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ref 5 is missing a few details. The Ohio Good Roads Federation wrote the book.
- Publisher added, couldn't find any more details in google books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- "appropriation bill for the Department of Transportation mentioned" Optional, you should change Department of Transportation -> United States Department of Transportation, so it would not be confused for ODOT.
Article's going on hold. Happy two-year anniversary of the demolition!—– 03:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
United States Department of Transportation was linked anyway but I piped it. Should be OK now @CycloneIsaac:. All addressed I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Other than that one citation (I'll fix it), the article looks fine, passing!—– 23:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dr. Blofeld and CycloneIsaac! Been really busy as of late with life, thanks for polishing it up some more. This article was something that I am not too major of a contributor, but I was asked to help work on it and I'm glad its a GA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. If you can get this to GA, we might have a Good topic.—– 02:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, let's start working on it. - Denimadept (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. If you can get this to GA, we might have a Good topic.—– 02:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dr. Blofeld and CycloneIsaac! Been really busy as of late with life, thanks for polishing it up some more. This article was something that I am not too major of a contributor, but I was asked to help work on it and I'm glad its a GA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)