Talk:Kinzua Bridge/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "oscillated" probably doesn't need to be linked.

Unlinked. ​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 05:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "The Kinzua Bridge was used as an example in the History Channel's Life After People of how corrosion and high winds would cause, eventually, all steel structures to collapse." - unreferenced.

I cited the actual TV show. If thats not OK, I have a backup. ​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 18:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Not clear - are the "overlook" and "observation deck" the same thing? If so, when was the observation deck completed? If not, what is the current status of the deck?

The "overlook" and the "observation deck" are not the same thing. Put in status as "nothing has been decided on yet." ​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 05:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

   Great images!

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well written, just a few issues! —Rob (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote a really odd-sounding paragraph; everything else looks good. —Rob (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)