Talk:Tay Bridge/GA1

GA Reassessment
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tay Rail Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.


 * There has been a request for citation in this article since March 2008.


 * Large sections are completely without citations. For instance, the first two paragraphs of The first Tay Bridge, and almost the entire Official enquiry sections.


 * This sentence: "Tay Bridge" was also the codename for the funeral plans for Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother." appears at the end of a section called A second bridge. Why?


 * Section names should not begin with definite or indefinite articles. For instance; Second Bridge, not A second bridge, Tay Bridge Disaster, not The Tay Bridge Disaster.


 * Section names should not (usually) repeat or include the article name. For instance, First bridge, not The first Tay Bridge.


 * The article uses imperial and metric units inconsistently. One or the other should always be given first, with a conversion to the other.


 * Authors are listed as lastname, firstname in Notes, but firstname, lastname in Bibliography. Should be consistently one or the other, preferably lastname, firstname.


 * Only one of the books cited gives the page numbers where the information being relied on can be found. Page number(s) need to be given for each citation of a book.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of units depends on the source. If the source is in metric, then that's what's used.  If it's in Imperial, ditto.  I can't argue with the rest.  - Denimadept (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that's not the case. Units must be used consistently throughout the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As these issues remain outstanding, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: I've assumed that the "tonnes" used in the article are Metric Tons. Can anyone verify this? - Denimadept (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)