Talk:Grand Street Bridge (Connecticut)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 19:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no specific knowledge or expertise on this topic, but will do the best I can to review it against the criteria. Please excuse me for asking any dumb questions during the course of the review. Go Phightins! 19:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Several copyediting issues, most of which are listed below (at least the ones I caught)	Fail
(b) (MoS)	Some underlinking, but other than that, we're good.	[[File:|16px]]

• Please link or explain terms that may be unclear to non-bridge experts (e.g., me). For example: bascule, movable bridges, trunnion post, deck-girder approach, breach of contract, excessive settling. I know what a few of these are, but not all, and I am guessing that others might be confused by them as well.

Prose issues

• The delays resulted in the Connecticut Supreme Court case of Edward DeV. Tompkins, Inc. vs. City of Bridgeport, Connecticut; with Tompkins prevailing and winning damages equal to the contract. Run-on.

 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• The last major work was in 1984, replacing the of eastern approach span, reconstructing the northwest trunnion post and other minor repairs to the steel and masonry. Meh ... something ought to link 1984 to the work that was done. Also, and this probably cannot be rectified, but there is a lack of parallelism.

 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• The call for bids for the project, consisting of the substructure, superstructure and approaches were supposed to be received by April 6, 1916, but was delayed to May 6, 1916. Completely ambiguous. The call for bids consisted of substructure, superstructure and approaches? Or the bids were supposed to consist of ...? Why was it delayed, and if there is no reason, why does it warrant mention in the article?

Not sure as to why it was delayed. I'll have to ask for access to the books again.

I've decided that the likely reason was the lack of bids was cause for the delay, but as this would be speculative, I think its acceptable to spare a few words since this data is actually not properly supported in other publications and actually causes some confusion in the chronology if it is not actually addressed. With all the expansion relating to the case details, I think it is a worthwhile inclusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• The contract was made on May 16, 1916 with work to begin with fifteen days and the completion by September 1, 1917. to The contract was made on May 16, 1916 with work to begin with 15 days and the completion by September 1, 1917. use numerals for integers <10

 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• The moving bridge had two bascule leaves, each 48 feet (15 m) long that were each connected by a deck-girder approach that was 69 feet (21 m) long; an overall length of 372 feet (113 m). A semi-colon is supposed to specify the beginning of a new independent clause ... the semi-colon in here does not.

 Done Fixed with rewording. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• A minor note, but can we cite reference #6 just at the end of the paragraph rather than after every sentence?

I really like having these notes, because I have been using them to efficiently fix the article, but I suppose I could remove some of them if you really want... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• The original contractor tasked to build the bridge was Edward DeVoe Tompkins, Inc., but problems with the bridge's timely construction lead to a protracted legal battle that came before the Connecticut Supreme Court in the case of Edward DeV. Tompkins, Inc. vs. City of Bridgeport, Connecticut. to {{green| Edward DeVoe Tompkins, Inc. was initially contracted to build the bridge, but problems with its timely construction led to a protracted legal battle. The case ultimately landed before the Connecticut Supreme Court in Edward DeV. Tompkins v. City of Bridgeport, Connecticut.]] Numerous stylistic issues in original version.

Think I've resolved this. Still tinkering a bit with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comma could be included after "unresponsive" in Tompkins sued the City of Bridgeport for breach of contract on the grounds that City of Bridgeport was unresponsive and did not clear the site as scheduled, though that is personal preference, so take it or leave it.

Done... it helps give a pause for reading that works here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• The City of Bridgeport alleged that Tompkins was incompetent and uncooperative, but the Connecticut Supreme Court disagreed, ruled in favor of Tompkins and awarded the full contract as damages Run-on. Could be "disagreed, and ruled ...", or "disagreed, ruling ...", or even split into two sentences, but as it stands, it is a blatant run-on.

Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• The bridge opened in 1919 and served the city without major concern until 1932 when it was discovered that the southeast pier had excessive settling; requiring the removal of the bascule and replacing the pier. Run-on.

Fixed.

• The pier and floor was replaced and a new electrical system was installed in 1936. to The pier and floor were replaced and a new electrical system was installed in 1936.

Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• The last major work on the bridge was in 1984, which included the replacement of eastern approach span and reconstruction of the northwest trunnion post with other minor repairs to the bridge's steel and masonry. Um ... the two clauses (which by the way are missing separative punctuation) do not really seem to relate ... split into two sentences perhaps?

Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Do we have any more on the publication info. of that book?	Don't know
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Yes.	Pass
(c) (original research)	Good.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Not entirely sure what the major aspects of bridge articles are, but seems to be a decent history of the bridge.	Don't know
(b) (focused)	It does not deviate from the bridge.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Check.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
check	}y}

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Image appears to be in the public domain.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	For a short article, we are a long way off. Go Phightins! 20:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

• I'm going to have to pull my books again and see if there is anything more. I'll contact the historical society on Monday if need be, but they are not too active or accessible for me. Sadly, there seems to be no historical photos upon which I can use to found better prose and descriptions on. The HAER study is essentially everything in summary and I'm summarizing a summary, but the issues and ambiguities originally in the HAER document are not addressed in any other source I've yet got. Perhaps the only way to resolve this is to get a copy of the Supreme Court logs and go through all the data piece by piece. Unfortunately, its not digitized and I can't even bring up the records in any of my local libraries and the State likely has it "warehoused". I got the briefs, which will work, and I will clean it up some and add some context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I got many more additional details on the Tompkins side because of the court case and really got a great summary of the project's problems and timetable up until the dismissal. Even the HAER document states rather plainly: "The contractor for the bridge, Edward DeVoe Tompkins, Inc. of New York City, was dismissed from the project partway through and another firm was hired to complete the bridge." It doesn't even tell me who was hired. The Grand Street Bridge was one of those pages where I was just really stumped in trying to figure out its chronology and what was relevant without getting bogged down in technical specifications. @Go Phightins!:, sorry to give you another lengthy set of sections to go through, but I think I cleaned it up fairly well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice work with the cleanup. I think it meets the general criteria, though in spot checking, I found a close paraphrasing concern: "there were minor repairs to the steel and masonry" (the source) and "Other minor repairs to the bridge's steel and masonry" (the article). I did a few spot checks, and that was the only instance I found, but was then compelled to do a little more of a thorough check for close paraphrasing, during which I found nothing. As such, I am comfortable that this article meets the GA criteria, but was wondering if perhaps there was a "bridge editor" of whom you know from whom I could seek a second opinion. If not, I will pass it, but I would be more comfortable if someone else gave it a quick once-over. Do you know of anyone who could do so? Go Phightins! 20:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't know any active bridge reviewers to look at it. Dr. Blofeld actually took care of the fixes on one bridge article for me while I was tied up with real-life stuff. As for the "bridge's steel and masonry" - yes, the description of what was done was simply that. It doesn't tell me what actually was fixed, usually this is repainting, rust removal and sealing masonry cracks or something "minor" that doesn't involve its removal. Without more to go on, I had no choice, but to leave that simple description as is. If its a real issue I could always quote it... Also, I noticed several other prose errors I made in trying to make sense of the three dozen pages of legal papers, they are now fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, then. I will pass it, as I think it meets the criteria, but there is always the chance some bridge expert comes by to take it to GAR if I am completely missing something related to bridges. Either way, good job. Go Phightins! 20:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)