Talk:George Washington Bridge/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PointsofNoReturn (talk · contribs) 03:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I will review this nominee. I cross this bridge a lot and am familiar with the article. Please allow a few days for a complete review. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Detailed feedback

1a.

• "spanning the Hudson River in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Manhattan in New York City with the borough of Fort Lee in New Jersey" - Likely typo, feel free to correct how you would like.
  • @PointsofNoReturn: I fixed it. I don't know how I missed a comma after "Hudson River". Hopefully rewording should do the trick. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Rewording did the trick. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1b.

• I do not think you need to have references in the lead for the nicknames of the George Washington Bridge, or at least not 4 separate references. Too many references makes it a bit cluttered, especially for the lead section. Can you find one reference for all the nicknames?
  • I combined the references so there are only two now. I can't epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

2a.

2b.

• The clearance above field in the infobox is not referenced. Please add reference(s) for the upper and lower level clearances. Citations 18 and/or 19 would probably do the trick.
  • I have just done that, thanks. However, WP:INFOBOXREF says References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. So I'll err on the side of caution. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for adding it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Please add citations for the construction start date and end dates (one end date for each level). Again, please use existing references if possible.
  • Done.
    • On the second thought, after reviewing your comment above as well as a few featured bridge articles, please remove the references for the construction start and end dates. They are mentioned explicitly in the article, so that is sufficient. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Done. epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Some sentences in the Decks and Cables subsections seem to be over-referenced. For example, "the bridge carries 14 lanes of traffic, seven in each direction." has two references when it could probably use just one. I am not sure if over-referencing is necessarily a GA issue, but I would recommend consolidating references in those two sections if you can. The rest of the article does not seem over-referenced.
  • Two references isn't really that bad, in my opinion. Both these references are used elsewhere, which is why I put them together. If it were four references or more, though, then it might be overkill. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Point taken for most of the two sections. However, a few sentences of the first paragraph in the Cables subsection have 3 references. Any way to reduce it to 2? If not, I will strikethrough. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, not really. Each source generally references he same thing but also adds a few details here and there. All of these citations are also used elsewhere, so I can't combine them. As I said before, I'd be worried if it were four or more references. I think three is fine. epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Ok. I am ok with having the amount of references in that paragraph. Strikethrough. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Citation 188 does not seem to reference everything in the sentence it is supposed to reference. For example, it does not reference that the Tappan Zee Bridge is tolled eastbound.
  • Fixed.
• Citation 210 is a dead link. It also may not have covered everything in the paragraph.
  • I fixed the under-citation issue. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Utilizing external link tool in GA toolbox, references 6, 14, 157, 164, and 212 are dead. Please repair/replace these links, or simply remove them if they are no longer necessary.
  • Refs 6, 14, and 157 have been removed as they supplemented refs that weren't dead.
  • Ref 164 is dead, but the archive link wasn't the first link that was served.
  • I replaced ref 210 with a live link.
  • I found archive links for ref 212. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Reference 212 (now 211) seems seems dead on my end. Still seeing "page not found". PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I fixed it. epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Last external link, "George Washington Bridge: Spanning history", is also a dead link. Not a reference, but thought I would include regardless.
  • Removed.

2c.

3a.

• Did construction start in September or October 1927? The infobox says October 1927, but the article text details a groundbreaking ceremony on September 21, 1927.
  • I fixed it. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• "Further north within the New York metropolitan area, the Tappan Zee Bridge (Interstates 87/287 and New York State Thruway) avoids the city proper." - Many travelers, especially truckers, will take various highways to use 287 as an alternative to the Cross-Bronx expressway, meeting up with I-95 again in Port Chester. I recommend adding a short mention of avoiding the congested Cross-Bronx Expressway as a reason to use the TZB and I-287. Perhaps adding "...the city proper and congested highways such as the Cross Bronx Expressway."
  • Done.
    • The way you have it now makes it seem like the Bronx is not part of the city proper. Any way to rephrase that to make it obvious that the Bronx is part of NYC? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
      • All right, I've fixed it. epicgenius (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
        • That new phrasing looks good to me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

3b.

4.

5.

6a.

6b.

Overall:

Overall, you did a really good job building up this article. The article was an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned a lot about how the bridge was constructed and why it was constructed where it was. The article was also largely well-referenced. The few issues I noted above are largely the main ones to cover. No major structural changes to the article are necessary. I will do another run-through for grammar later. I will also do some checking for dead links. I will place the article on hold while necessary changes are made. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@PointsofNoReturn: Thanks for the review. I appreciate it. I have made the preceding changes accordingly. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Once again, great job with the article. Thank you for addressing my concerns in the review. I have also done a final dead link check and have found no more dead links. Additionally, I have done a final grammar check and found no grammatical errors. As a result, I hereby pass this article. Congratulations! PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)