Talk:The Causeway/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 11:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I will review. I read through the article before starting the review, and it looks to be at about Good Article standard, so I do not anticipate major problems with passing it. I will now conduct a more detailed review of the article, noting any items that need attention. Can I suggest that you indicate when items have been addressed by adding comments below each item. I will review the lead at the end, once I have assessed the main content, but my initial opinion is that it is a little short for an article of this length. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * References.
 * Ref 22 (Perth Troleybuses) returns a 302 error, so you might like to check that it still points to something relevant.
 * URL updated - Evad37 (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * All other refs are still active, and there are no disambiguation links to fix.
 * I am not sure what is happening with the refs. I have now got quite a few reporting 302 errors, and ref 29 reports a timeout. I'll check back in a bit to see if it is a temporary problem.
 * At the moment all the external links are working for me... - Evad37 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have replaced all the nla.gov.au urls with trove.nla.gov.au urls, and the timeout has gone away, so it must have been a temporary glitch. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * First causeway
 * "Roe showed the public suggested plans for the proposed causeway" doesn't read well. Surely they were either plans for the proposed causeway, or proposed plans for the causeway.
 * deleted "suggested"


 * " to investigate into the viability of a causeway at the site". The "into" is unnecessary when using "investigate".
 * deleted "into"


 * "which was estimated to cost £2,300/-". I think the monetary amounts would be better shown as £2,300 (without the /-) when they refer to round numbers of pounds. (There are several of these). Sadly, the article on Australian pound does not explain the usage of amounts like £449/10/-, and the number of people who can remember shillings and pence is declining.
 * MOS:CURRENCY doesn't actually specify a preferred way to display pounds, shillings and pence. I've simplified values to just pounds where appropriate, and changed the others to use the £2.3s.6d format per the £sd article.


 * "The bridge was completed in 1841, costing £449/10/-, however the approaches to the bridge took longer to complete." Punctuation needs fixing. If using "however", it follows a semicolon. If using a comma, suggest "although".
 * changed to "although"


 * "costs for crossing ranged from 1d (for a person on foot) to 6d (for a horse-drawn cart)." Brackets become very tedious when reading. I suggest you just remove them, though I wonder if 1d needs expanding, to something like "from one penny (1d)" so that readers unfamiliar with the currency know how to read it.
 * removed brackets, explained penny per above


 * "levy of 50%" Suggest "50 per cent".


 * Second causeway
 * "causing losses over £30,000/-" doesn't read well. Suggest "resulting in losses of over £30,000" or somesuch.


 * "under seven or eight feet of water." could do with a metric equivalent.


 * "However, Governor John Hampton ordered the causeway be rehabilitated" doesn't read well. Suggest "ordered that the causeway should be rehabilitated" or somesuch. I'm not sure if rehabilitation is the right word for a causeway either. It sounds like therapy. Perhaps "reconstructed"?
 * both.


 * "opened by the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Alfred, however the British Navy ship" Another however after a comma. As before, use "; however" or ", but".
 * changed to ;


 * "A maximum of 4,480 pounds (2.03 t) was initially allowed across at a time (or six head of cattle)" The final clause is in the wrong place. Suggest "A maximum of 4,480 pounds (2.03 t) or six head of cattle was initially allowed across at a time." or somesuch.


 * "widened by an average of 2.85 metres (9.4 ft)" The units are in reverse order to most others. They need to be consistent, with imperial (metric) or metric (imperial), but not a mixture.


 * "By 1945 the Causeway bridges were widened". "By" and "were" don't fit together. Suggest "By 1945 the Causeway bridges had been widened", unless you can find an exact date.
 * Rewritten with info from new sources, which indicate it was widened was from 1932 to 1933.


 * Third causeway
 * "The current Causeway ... This current Causeway ..." Suggest replacing the second one with "It".


 * "dredge the river channels to provide much wider navigation channels" Suggest removing the first "channels" to avoid repetition.


 * "The bridges have a combined length of 1,119 feet (341 m), both feature a 62-foot (19 m) wide roadway..." Both does not work as a conjunction. Suggest "... (341 m), with both featuring a 62-foot ..."


 * "the roadway surfaces follow vertical curves." It is unclear what this means, since it sounds like the road goes vertically upwards.
 * Removed vertical curves and rewritten to increase clarity. also wikilinked "graded" to Grade (slope)


 * "while the western one didn't open until December 1954" Avoid use of contractions such as "didn't".


 * "Guides on the usage of the roundabouts were published in newspapers." Was this because roundabouts were rare or unusual at the time?
 * Basically yes, but I can't find a source that say so explicitly. The current ref only states that they were published, but doesn't go into why that was necessary.


 * "The western roundabout, the state's worst black spots since 1989" Roundabout is singular, black spots is plural. Suggest either "one of the state's worst black spots" or "the state's worst black spot" depending on sources.
 * per source


 * "in conjunction with the other works on the Causeway". It is not clear what "the other works" were, since the previous sentence is dealing with events 11 years later. Maybe just drop the "the", so "in conjunction with other works..."
 * . Made clearer that the remodelling happened in 2000 (with the bus lane changes previously discussed in the paragraph).


 * "had to be "tied back" with carbon fibre reinforcement" Not sure why the quotes are round "tied back". It suggests the words are used in an unusual context, but this sounds like a fairly standard engineering procedure.
 * removed quotes


 * Suggest wikilinking Western Australian Register of Heritage Places to Heritage Council of Western Australia and National Trust to National Trust of Australia.


 * Route description
 * Again there is a muddle of imperial (metric) and metric (imperial) units here, which need resolving.
 * Changed all the units in this section to be metric (imperial).

So far so good. I will be checking that the refs are used appropriately next.


 * References
 * As most of the refs are off-line sources, I have been unable to check them all. However, where the sources are online, they appear to have been used appropriately, so I am assuming that the offline ones have been similarly used. However, Ref 10 appears to be about rice and Mauritius, so needs checking out.
 * Ref 10: fixed page number, added quote to the ref. I too am assuming good faith for offline sources added by other editors.


 * Refs 3, 4, 9 and 10 should have the title in Title Case, rather than UPPERCASE.


 * Ref 6 appears to be a book and so needs a publisher. It is presumably too early to have an isbn.
 * Actually, it is a thesis. I've changed the ref to use cite thesis, and added in publisher and OCLC info.


 * Ref 14 refers to a multi-page pdf, and so needs page numbers (though I did eventually find the information cited).


 * There seem to be a lot of duplicated refs, where the same ref is used for consecutive statements. They should be combined. So the paragraph beginning "The southeastern bridge is the longer of the two ..." uses ref 18 three times. As there is no information between them which is unsourced, a single ref at the end of the paragraph should suffice.
 * I have removed a couple more duplicated references. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed a couple more duplicated references. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The references section should follow normal practice and be in alphabetical order, so Edmonds should come before Godfrey.


 * Lead
 * The lead should introduce the subject and summarise the main points of the article. It is a little too thin to meet the second half of this requirement. Perhaps expand the first paragraph by meentioning it is the third structure. For the second paragraph, a few more details from each section are needed. Perhaps first planned in 1834 and opened in 1843 from the first causeway, with maybe a mention of Moore or Roe's involvement. Perhaps something on the opening from the second causeway. The third causeway section is rather larger, and so may merit a paragraph of its own in the lead.
 * I've expanded the lead, what do you think of it? - Evad37 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better. It now fulfils its purpose.

The formal bit

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I am not putting the article on hold yet, as although I have finished the main review, I need to check back to see if the problem with the refs is temporary or permanent. Overall, a thoroughly interesting article, with a few minor details to sort out before it passes. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The ref issues are fixed. Thanks for your speedy response to the issues raised. All of them have now been addressed, so I have no hesitation in awarding Good Article status. Happy editing! Bob1960evens (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)