Talk:Clinton Railroad Bridge/GA1

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

Reviewer: Helloimahumanbeing (talk · contribs) 19:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * First and second paragraph under Planning, doesn't seem to fit, would be better for the articles on Fulton and Lyons, especially in their current form. The first paragraph of planning should also have http://iagenweb.org/clinton/history/arch/hist.htm, which is used later in the article, used as a source. In fact, the four paragraphs of the planning section could be shortened into 1.
 * How does the section look ? —WikiHelper26 (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe remove "The need for a crossing on the Upper Mississippi River was long-known, back to the 1832 signing of a treaty between Chief Keokuk of the Blackhawk Nation and the United States government" and reword "In 1852, the citizens of Lyons were excited to learn that a railroad was to be built westward across Iowa from the city, which would have led to the likelihood of a railroad crossing of the Mississippi River between Lyons and Fulton. "Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the first second (✅ on that part). As for the second sentence mentioning 1852, I did some changes to it as well.
 * I would remove the word excited and make more like"the citizens of Lyons learnt..." Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ —WikiHelper26 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "The train traveled from Wyoming to Illinois", shouldn't it be "The train was traveling from Wyoming to Illinois"? "In 2013, Union Pacific has planned to build a new $400 million span bridge to replace the current one", the has should be removed. "On March 12, 2019, news reporters from the KWQC-TV announced that the bridge would be replaced.", I don't think this should be there.
 * First sentence fixed. Second sentence removed. ✅. --WikiHelper26 (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.
 * 5.
 * 6.
 * 7.
 * 8.
 * 9.
 * 10.
 * 11.
 * 12.
 * 13.
 * 14.
 * 15.
 * 16.
 * 17.
 * 18.
 * 19.
 * 20.
 * 21.
 * 22.
 * 23.
 * 24.
 * 25.
 * 23.
 * 24.
 * 25.


 * C. It contains no original research:
 * "Unfortunately, the Lyons and Iowa Central Air Line Rail Road... foundered and eventually went out of business before work was completed to connect Lyons to Iowa City, 73 miles (117 km) to the west." not mentioned in only provided source of the paragraph, also, the word unfortunately probably should be removed. "The Iowa Land Company was organized in 1855 with the announcement that a railroad crossing was to be attempted South of Lyons and Fulton, at Little Rock Island. The land company bought Bartlett's holdings on the Iowa side of the river and re-platted them under the name Clinton, Iowa, in honor of the Governor of New York, DeWitt Clinton.", No source provided, and Little Rock Island doesn't seem to exist.
 * This source mentions "The land company bought Bartlett's holdings on the Iowa side of the river and re-platted them under the name Clinton, Iowa, in honor of the Governor of New York, DeWitt Clinton.": http://iagenweb.org/clinton/history/arch/hist.htm. I've added the source and changed some locations of it in this diff. --WikiHelper26 (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "thus ending the ascendancy of steamboats in favor of railroads", [|the source] says something close, "ending the war between the bridge operators and steamboat operators", but not exact
 * I rephrased the sentence to “therefore stopping the occupation of steamboats and approval of railroads.” —WikiHelper26 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * "The swing span is the largest ever erected, and it was the first electrified swing bridge.", diret copy paste from http://johnmarvigbridges.org/Clinton%20Rail%20Bridge.html. "The bridge has a vertical clearance of 18.7 ft (5.7 m) above normal pool." basically copied from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/06/11/E8-13085/drawbridge-upper-mississippi-river-clinton-ia-repair-and-maintenance
 * Sentence mentioning the bridge being the first electrified swing bridge removed. Changes done to the sentence mentioning it's vertical clearance. --WikiHelper26 (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "firefighters said that 25 ties that were warped by heat would need to be replaced" copied from https://books.google.com/books?id=B5NFAAAAIBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=ties&f=false
 * Sentence fixed. —WikiHelper26 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * Third paragraph of planning's mention of the name "Calico Line" is unneeded
 * Removed the sentence. ✅. --WikiHelper26 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * First images caption is better suited for insertion in the text
 * Could you clarify this sentence? Do you suggest I remove it from the caption and place it somewhere else? --WikiHelper26 (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, possibly at the end of the first paragraph.
 * Removed the caption (✅), added “and is adjacent to the Gateway Bridge.” after channel. It looks like this: “The bridge is a truss bridge with a swing span crossing the main river channel and is adjacent to the Gateway Bridge.“ —WikiHelper26 (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd just give the first image a caption along the lines of "The Clinton Railroad Bridge in (Year photo was made) Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --WikiHelper26 (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I'd just give the first image a caption along the lines of "The Clinton Railroad Bridge in (Year photo was made) Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --WikiHelper26 (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Nominator has been blocked
Helloimahumanbeing, WikiHelper26 was blocked a few days ago; according to their talk page it was a checkuser block, so it's unlikely that they'll be back. It's up to you how you conclude this nomination; if it's close, you may want to try to find someone from one of the WikiProjects to deal with anything that still needs to be addressed; if there's a fair amount of work still to be done, you may want to simply close the review. I'm sorry for the bad news; thanks for taking on this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)