Talk:Queensboro Bridge/GA1
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Seawolf35 in topic GA Review
GA Review
editThe 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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Seawolf35 (talk · contribs) 14:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- My first review! I will most likely ask for a 2O after I conclude the review since it is my first. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 14:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am going to just dump my thoughts below as I read through and spot check so I don't forget what I want to point out. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 14:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- -It seems technical in some places, but given the subject matter that seems necessary.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- -Illustrated well!
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- -Very well written, just a few minor nitpicks!
- Pass or Fail:
Detailed Comments
edit- Under "Post unification approval",
A state assemblyman proposed a bill in January 1900 to appoint commissioners for a bridge or tunnel between Manhattan and Queens.
- I presume you could mention who that assemblyman was to be consistent with the rest of the article.
- Under "Opening and 1910s", the first sentence about people applying to jump off the bridge seems out of place. There seems to be no mention of the bride jumping in the rest of the article. Maybe move the sentence or remove it?
- Under "Progress on superstructure and approaches",
...when disgruntled workers tried to dynamite the Blackwell's Island span.
"Tried to dynamite" seems a bit awkward, most people associate dynamite with the explosive. Maybe change it to something like...when disgruntled workers tried to destroy the Blackwell's Island span with dynamite.
- MOS:OVERLINK - Since Ed Koch is linked in the 3rd paragraph of the lead it probably doesn't need to be be linked again in the 2nd paragraph under "Name".
- Under "Spans",
The decks themselves were designed to carry as much as 16,000 pounds per foot (24,000 kg/m)
WP:YOUDONTSAY, I believe the reader will have figured out that this article is about a bridge by now. They don't need to be told that the decks on a bridge hold bridge.of bridge.
- Under "Completion",
The city refused to pay Pennsylvania Steel until 1912, when a judge forced the city to do so.
. Consider using "them" with the second occurrence of "the city."
- Thanks for the comments. I've addressed all of the issues you raised, and I removed the info about jumpers (I couldn't find anything else about that). Epicgenius (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
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.