Talk:Abbotsford Bridge/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Fredddie (talk · contribs) 22:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I will review the article shortly. –Fredddie™ 22:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


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

- Has been expanded, if you think it requires further expansion let me know (and some pointers of what needs more focus) -- Nbound (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The lead seems a little short. There is a long history section yet there is only one sentence of history in the lead.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall pretty good, but I think the lead needs to reflect the length of the history section. –Fredddie™ 01:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall pretty good, but I think the lead needs to reflect the length of the history section. –Fredddie™ 01:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Overall pretty good, but I think the lead needs to reflect the length of the history section. –Fredddie™ 01:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's more like it. Passing now. –Fredddie™ 04:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)