Talk:Nutty Narrows Bridge/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 20:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article, which looks really promising and interesting. I'm new to GA Reviews so I will do my best. Look forward to working with you! Unexpectedlydian (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Infobox

• Material - should Fire hose and aluminium be WikiLinked?
  • Done.
    • Thanks Y

Lead

• "The bridge inspired the construction of several other squirrel crossings in Longview" - Can you point to or name any of these examples, or even better link to them? Maybe you can use something mentioned in the section Preservation and related bridges
  • As the other bridges are not individually notable enough for their own articles, this wouldn't be a good idea. I've already mentioned a few of their designs in the section, so it should be fine.
    • Agreed Y

History

• "Before the bridge was built, several squirrels were killed while crossing busy streets that separated Longview's city park (which had large trees) and an area with plentiful nuts." - Could we re-word this sentence a bit? I'm assuming you mention the large trees as they were the habitat of the squirrels. Also I think "separated from" reads a bit better. How about: "Before the bridge was built, several squirrels were killed while crossing busy streets that separated large trees in Longview's city park from an area with plentiful nuts." Feel free to amend.
  • Done, but using the park name instead.
    • Great, that reads nicely Y
• "The bridge was named the "Nutty Narrows" by councilwoman Bess LaRivere, a reference to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge." - The sources seem to suggest that the name is likely in reference to Tacoma Narrows Bridge, could we amend to make that clearer?
  • Fixed.
    • Y
• Ref 9 (Scorecard: Freeloader Freeway, pp. 7-8) does not seem to cover the preceding text. There is no reference in the Scorecard article to the $1,000 cost, the use of fire hose as a material, or the spectators. Are these elements covered in a different source?
  • This citation is meant to support the attendance count; the other information is all supported by the next citation (No. 10)
    • Thanks for clarifying Y
• "An abbreviated ceremony took place on March 31 with Washington State Patrol chief Roy Betlach cutting a miniature ribbon on the bridge after being hoisted into the air on a cherry picker." - Should the WikiLink to Opening Ceremony on the phrase "miniature ribbon" instead be attached to the word "ceremony" earlier in the sentence?
  • Not needed, as the concept of an opening ceremony is quite generic but ribboncuttings are more specific.
    • Thanks Y
• The first instance of "Sandbaggers" in this section should have an explanation of who they are (there is an explanation for the second instance under Preservation and related bridges).
  • Moved up to the first mention of Peters.
    • Y
• "It is also decorated annually with a Christmas tree and lights by city maintenance workers." An accompanying image would enhance the article here I think. Here is one of the bridge decorated for Christmas on Wikimedia Commons (unfortunately not of a very high quality so I'll let you decide).
  • I'd rather not include substandard images, especially when a suitable replacement could be found later.
    • No problem Y
• "a ten-foot (3.0 m) wooden squirrel sculpture was placed near the bridge in his memory." Again, I think an accompanying image here would be good. I have found one of the wooden squirrel on the Commons here (again, not great in quality so bear that in mind).
  • This image might not be allowed on Commons, as freedom of panorama does not extend to sculptures. Again, I'd rather not have substandard images used here.
    • Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that. Makes sense, thank you Y

Looking really good, and I've enjoyed reading the article. I'll continue shortly to check sources, media, and the other GA criteria (see checklist below). Unexpectedlydian (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've reviewed the rest. And added to the checklist below. Hope it all makes sense, let me know if you have any questions. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Unexpectedlydian: Thanks for the review; I've replied to all the points raised above and below. You're already handling things like a seasoned reviewer, so I'm looking forward to seeing you around GAN in the future. SounderBruce 06:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Thank you for your swift responses and encouragement - happy to promote this to GA. Good work! Unexpectedlydian (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Criteria checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Add as per MOS:LEADELEMENTS. Not a requirement and not necessary unless the article is rewritten by someone unfamiliar with the house style used here. Y
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Y
	2b. 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).	* See comment about ref 9 above. In general, can the articles from The Daily News be WikiLinked (The Daily News (Longview, Washington)). Overlinking in citations is not recommended. The newspaper is already linked in its first use, and that's good enough. Y
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is backed up by reliable sources, content there's no original research. Y
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio detector brings up nothing concerning. Y
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Y
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Y
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Y
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Recent additions are constructive. Y
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Y
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See comments about potential additional images above. Y
	7. Overall assessment.	Happy to promote to GA. Y

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.