Talk:Frank J. Wood Bridge/GA2

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

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 01:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'll pick this up. I'll make minor copyedits as I go so please review those and revert any you disagree with. I'll ping you again once I've finished. grungaloo (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Jake Jakubowski Talk 02:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm done my review. Some issues to work through, let me know once you're done. grungaloo (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, congrats on GA! grungaloo (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments below Issues addressed
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Ref section exists, and sources are generally reliable. Usage of some sources is a bit off, and there's some close paraphrasing that need to be addressed. Issues addressed
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Coverage is adequate for what seems to be available
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Meets NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable, no edit wars
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are good and properly licensed, captions look good too.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
Refs 2,4,8,12,15,16,21,23 checked. Generally good but some issues mentioned below.
 * I see this was a comment on the previous GA, but the sections could still use some work.
 * The lead is a bit short. Could use brief overview of the history and the controversies
 * - Some close paraphrasing here, this needs to be reworded.
 * - The first bridge was built in 1796 which is after the Colonial Era, I'd drop this, just lead with when the first bridge was built.
 * - A lot of parentheticals here make it confusing to parse. Is Fort Andross just below Bruinswick falls? Or was the bridge juts below the falls? I'd suggest rewriting to make it clearer what is located where.
 * - The source doesn't call it First Bridge from what I can see, it says it was the "first" bridge. As far as I can tell it didn't have a name, so I would change this.
 * - again, doesn't seem like "1811 Bridge" was the name of it, it was just the bridge that was built in 1811. I would reword to say this is when it was constructed, and don't capitalize "bridge".
 * - Same issue here
 * Namesake section - Ref 4, this is being used to source the entire section, but it's only a brief obituary and doesn't cover everything stated here. Please check the references and make sure this is cited properly. Also, I'm not sure what Ref 5 is being used for here, it could be dropped.
 * - I'd drop "Boston, Massachusetts", the location of the company isn't really important here, and it's implied by the name.
 * - I'd join these two together with a "however"
 * - The new story is dated to September, I would replace this with "by September of the same year" to avoid the vagueness.
 * Reconstruction and repairs - I would drop this section and join these sentences into the previous paragraph
 * - This is a long sentence that's a bit hard to follow. I would split it into two, first talk about the initial 2016 review, then in the next sentence say how it changed in 2017.
 * Ref 15 is a virtual model of the bridge, which is a bit iffy for a source, is there a news article or statement from the county that you can use instead?
 * - Move this section to the start of the section.
 * - This sounds like the original build "was of poor quality", try rewording to "had deteriorated".
 * - I would reword these, "Two-way traffic on the new bridge is expected to be completed in late 2025,... will be completed in early 2026". Framing them with negatives (not) sounds odd.
 * - "the policy act was in violation" doesn't make sense. Do you mean the existence of the bridge was violating the act? A policy act can't really be "in violation", a policy act /is/ violated.
 * - Drop "United States District Court for the District of Maine", and I suggest joining these two sentences together.
 * - I'd join these two together with a "however"
 * - The new story is dated to September, I would replace this with "by September of the same year" to avoid the vagueness.
 * Reconstruction and repairs - I would drop this section and join these sentences into the previous paragraph
 * - This is a long sentence that's a bit hard to follow. I would split it into two, first talk about the initial 2016 review, then in the next sentence say how it changed in 2017.
 * Ref 15 is a virtual model of the bridge, which is a bit iffy for a source, is there a news article or statement from the county that you can use instead?
 * - Move this section to the start of the section.
 * - This sounds like the original build "was of poor quality", try rewording to "had deteriorated".
 * - I would reword these, "Two-way traffic on the new bridge is expected to be completed in late 2025,... will be completed in early 2026". Framing them with negatives (not) sounds odd.
 * - "the policy act was in violation" doesn't make sense. Do you mean the existence of the bridge was violating the act? A policy act can't really be "in violation", a policy act /is/ violated.
 * - Drop "United States District Court for the District of Maine", and I suggest joining these two sentences together.
 * - Move this section to the start of the section.
 * - This sounds like the original build "was of poor quality", try rewording to "had deteriorated".
 * - I would reword these, "Two-way traffic on the new bridge is expected to be completed in late 2025,... will be completed in early 2026". Framing them with negatives (not) sounds odd.
 * - "the policy act was in violation" doesn't make sense. Do you mean the existence of the bridge was violating the act? A policy act can't really be "in violation", a policy act /is/ violated.
 * - Drop "United States District Court for the District of Maine", and I suggest joining these two sentences together.
 * - "the policy act was in violation" doesn't make sense. Do you mean the existence of the bridge was violating the act? A policy act can't really be "in violation", a policy act /is/ violated.
 * - Drop "United States District Court for the District of Maine", and I suggest joining these two sentences together.
 * - Drop "United States District Court for the District of Maine", and I suggest joining these two sentences together.
 * - Drop "United States District Court for the District of Maine", and I suggest joining these two sentences together.