Talk:Ashland Mill Bridge/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 20:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this over the next few days. Jamesx12345 20:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Few points:


 * What does the "less than one acre" in the infobox mean?
 * The most recent history section doesn't quite follow. Presumably no grant money for the restoration was forthcoming, but it doesn't say that. Also, is the bridge still in the car park or has it been removed?
 * Something could be said about the specification of the replacement bridge, if such information exists.

Sorry about the delay - not done much in the past month. Jamesx12345 21:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The "less than one acre" refers to the historic property's boundaries. This comes from the nomination and database listing itself. The "Fate" section is well up in the air because I contacted the town and they seem to have moved the bridge to somewhere, but the current whereabouts were unknown when I asked. I never got a call back, but I could try again this week. The main problem is I am running up against the WP:OR matter if I include details I know and cannot cite. The bridge was the subject of restoration interest, but the cost would be beyond $100,000+ and it does have the issue of lead paint. The type of bridge is historically beautiful and wonderful to look at, but its current state is decaying and likely in desperate need of skilled restoration work before it can be serviceable again. My bridge is like $275,000 and remains in limbo many years later - I hope there may be action on the Ashland Mill Bridge in 2016-2017....but this article currently contains every scrap of information I could get. The replacement bridge also has not been the subject of any RSes I've seen. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Jamesx12345, ChrisGualtieri, what's the progress here? There hasn't been much of activity lately.--Retrohead (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have everything published on this bridge that could be found - not sure where the reviewer is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay again - the article is fine in its present state, but the suggestions below are good. Jamesx12345 22:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few notes that caught my eye. If the main reviewer doesn't have the time to finish the review, I'll step in.
 * dam break of February 1886–"in" instead "of"
 * but the bridge itself remained–isn't "the bridge remained still" a better option?
 * was replaced with a new bridge–"replaced with a new one", to avoid repetition
 * who are Clouette and Tinh?
 * can you merge the sentence from 'Notes' to the previous section? It's not usual to have stand-alone sentence as section.
 * Overall, pretty concise article, worth a GA status.--Retrohead (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)