Talk:Mike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Imzadi  1979   →  21:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Many of the sections of the article feel like a recitation of statistics with no narrative story winding through the prose to bind the text together. Please have someone copy edit the article with an eye to producing a more cohesive whole. In the sentence: "Construction required hoisting workers and up to 50 tons of materials 890 feet (270 m) above the Colorado River using 2,300 ft (700 m)-long steel cables held aloft by a "high-line" crane system." the second measurement should be rendered using the  parameter of convert, or hand-coded to read "2,300-foot (700 m)" The milestones table should be rewritten and converted to prose instead of a table. It probably should be integrated into the rest of the building section as part of the whole history.
 * I rather like the table in this case as it provides the reader with an accessible overview of what happened when, but I will not obstruct any changes which lead to attractive prose instead. The table replaced a series of one-per-milestone paragraphs which will definitely not be good enough. Perhaps we can try to write three or four paragraphs and embed a couple of the construction stage photos from the gallery. Mirokado (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Several supplied references have incomplete formatting. The references should have a consistent format, listing authors, titles, publishers, dates and access dates. Book, news paper, magazine and journal titles should be rendered in italics. Article and webpage titles should be rendered in quotation marks. Date formatting should be in the same format. Authors' names should be in the same format. Ref 5 is from the Arizona Republic newspaper by way of azcentral.com. (updated-Mk) Refs 6, 10, 16 are not the same source page, but the only information displayed in the citation is the same. (updated-Mk) Ref 8 is a broken link. (updated-Mk) What makes ref 12 a reliable source? Wouldn't a newspaper article be a better source of information for the cited fact? (updated-Mk) What makes ref 18 a reliable source? (updated-Mk) What makes ref 21 a reliable source? (updated-Mk) Why is there not a source provided for the sentence "In late 2004, the proposed bridge name honoring Mike O'Callaghan and Pat Tillman was announced at a ceremony by Nevada governor Kenny Guinn and Arizona governor Janet Napolitano." in the naming section. There are several whole paragraphs that are uncited, some with claims that need citation under the GA criteria. Things like "It is a key component of the proposed Interstate 11 project." need citation. A claim like "USA TODAY called it "America's Newest Wonder" on October 18, 2010" needs a citation. (The title of the newspaper should also be rendered correctly as USA Today as well.)
 * I will tidy up the references unless anyone else wants to instead, probably over the weekend 6/7 November. Mirokado (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Most systematic updates to the refs now complete, but no doubt further changes will be needed. See (updated-Mk) tags for specific resolved issues. Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Wikipedia isn't a business directory. I'm not sure that we need to know every company that was contracted for work on the bridge. The major firms in charge of the design and construction are sufficient unless they played a notable role in a news event.
 * Looking at Hoover Dam quite a few firms are mentioned. Here we have the main contractor for each phase of the works which seems reasonable: certainly not all the subcontractors, although there are a couple of other mentions in connection with specific events. This article is the target for the Hoover Dam Bypass redirect, so despite the name it covers more than just the one bridge. Mirokado (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * There seems to be some reverting of additions to the article in the recent edit history, but I'm not sure if it rises to the level of edit warring since the reversions weren't reverted. This alone does not impact my overall opinion of the condition of the article's suitability agains the criteria however.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:Hoover Dam Bypass Plans 1.jpg has incorrect licensing. It is the position of the Wikimedia Foundation that consistent with applicable copyright law in the US that a slavish copy of a 2D artwork does not have any new copyright. The tags and information on the file description page indicate that the photographer of the poster released his work into the public domain. As a direct copy of a public domain work, his photograph is in the public domain by default and could not be "released". Please pare down the number of images in the article. Select the best images and run them as full-size thumb nails instead of using the image gallery. The rest can be included by using a separate Commons gallery
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article is just not up to the standards expected of a Good Article. The copy editing needed to fix the criterion 1a issues can't be done without fixing the article to satisfy the criterion 3b issues. Some details need to be removed so that the rest of the story of this bridge can be woven together. Further research using better sources should be done. With a bridge of this importance in the region, there should be secondary sources available to cover every aspect of this structure completely. There should be no or very little need to resort to primary sources like http://www.hooverdambypass.org except for measurements and statistics on the bridge not included in the press articles. Please keep up the work on the article and renominate again when it's ready.  Imzadi  1979   →  23:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is just not up to the standards expected of a Good Article. The copy editing needed to fix the criterion 1a issues can't be done without fixing the article to satisfy the criterion 3b issues. Some details need to be removed so that the rest of the story of this bridge can be woven together. Further research using better sources should be done. With a bridge of this importance in the region, there should be secondary sources available to cover every aspect of this structure completely. There should be no or very little need to resort to primary sources like http://www.hooverdambypass.org except for measurements and statistics on the bridge not included in the press articles. Please keep up the work on the article and renominate again when it's ready.  Imzadi  1979   →  23:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope all of these comments help.  Imzadi  1979   →  00:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some additional comments:
 * [{:File:Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge - 2010-07.jpg]] has been tagged as a copyright violation. The photo comes from a website (http://www.hooverdambypass.org) run by the lead contractors on the project, not the US government, which means that photo isn't in the public domain.
 * 1) There are missing measurement conversions.
 * 2) The link in ref 3 has gone dead. Additionally, ref 3 is a newspaper in Owosso, MI. Surely there are press sources closer to the area covering the bridge in greater detail. This should have been a big story in the Las Vegas Sun and the Arizona Republic. (updated-Mk)
 * 3) According to the link checker in the toolbox, the Yahoo! news link (ref 1) will be expiring soon.
 * 4) According to the disambiguation link checker in the toolbox, there is a disambiguation link for ADA in the article that should be changed to Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (updated-Mk)
 * Thanks for this review. I have been updating over the weekend and have noted specific resolved issues with an (updated-Mk) tag above. Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)