Talk:Pont-y-Cafnau/GA1

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk)  13:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A very short article, but there may not be more which can be said about such a structure. However, I have some comments:
 * You're using the lang-templates the wrong way. "Pont-y-Cafnau" is the Welsh name, while "Bridge of Troughs" is English. So use lang-en or something instead of the current syntax. Alternative names should be bolded (in addition to the italics because it is in non-English.
 * ✅ (I think) —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead needs to contain some more information. With this sort of article, don't worry if almost half the content ends up in the lead. Also don't be afraid to contain information from the infobox. The lead should at least contain the length, designer and that the bridge is listed.
 * ✅ (I think) —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot see in ref 1 that the bridge is the world's earliest know railway bridge. This doesn't seem to be repeated in the body (which it should), so how is that referenced?
 * [[Image:Configure.svg|20px]] Worked On The Cadw listing (currently note #3) says that it is "probably the earliest known iron railway bridge" (emphasis added) and there is an article cited in Cragg which either speculates or contends that it was the very first one, but I've not been able to get my hands on that article, so I've changed the references to reflect what is said in the DeLony article, that the bridge is the earliest surviving iron railway bridge. —  T RANSPORTER M AN   ( TALK ) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you move the coordiates for the quarry out of the prose and either into a note, or at least a reference.
 * ✅ —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you modify the coord template to the syntax  so the coordinates show up in the title.
 * ✅ —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to WP:Dates, centuries are lower-case (19th century).
 * ✅ —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Using dashes to indicate periods is fine in tables or infoboxes, but in prose it is usually a lot better to write "from...to..." or similar.
 * ✅ —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No comma between a month and a year if there is no day in between.
 * ✅ —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All units need to be converted to metric (use convert).
 * ✅ —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The length of the bridge is completely left out of the prose.
 * ✅ —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like the section header "today". Perhaps "heritage" or similar would be more appropriate.
 * ✅ (but what would you think of "Recognition and Current Status" —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When was the bridge listed. Is there an official reasoning for the listing (even if it seems obvious, it is worth mentioning what the preservation authorities' rationale is).
 * [[Image:Configure.svg|20px]] Worked On The only details that I can find for the two official listing are what I've linked. Neither give their reasoning. The reference to it being the earliest known bridge in the Cadw listing is in the descriptive section, not in the "Reason for Listing" section, which is blank. The Cadw listing does give the listing date, which I've now inserted. The Royal Commission listing (note #4) gives a date (1990) but it's not clear whether that's the listing date or the date the listing record was stored with the Royal Commission, so I did not insert it. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am placing the article on hold. Arsenikk (talk)  13:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the help. [[Image:Face-grin.svg|20px]] I'll get to work... —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 19:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that, subject to further review, almost all the suggestions have been fulfilled (I hope), with the following exceptions and comments interlined above.  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 17:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations with a good article. If you find the missing information, please add it. However, the article does not need it to achieve GA status. Hope to see more of your work at GAN soon ;) Arsenikk (talk)  13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)