User:Dahlman, Steven A./Milo Academy Bridge/StaceySmithOSU Peer Review

Prof. Smith's comments on first draft of the Wikipedia article
Hi Steven,

Here are my comments about changes and improvements I would like to see to the article.

Lead:

This generally looks good, but I would probably go ahead and mention the original 1920 covered bridge here because that is likely a big part of why the bridge is considered historic.It wouldn't have been added to the national register of historic places in 1979 if it was the 1962 history that was only considered in the petition.

Content:

As a follow-up to my comment above, I would like to see you add in some additional information about the 1920 covered bridge here. Again, I suspect that this longer history to 1920 is why it is on the national register.

Why was farm equipment transportation a big deal at the academy? Were there surrounding farms that used the bridge? That seems like an interesting detail (if you can figure it out).

Why was the original covered bridge a big part of community identity? Can you be more specific about the types of arguments that community members made about why the cover should be replicated? That seems like a really expensive addition for something that serves no other important purpose. Or does it still serve an important purpose for protecting the bridge structure? Do non-wooden bridges not need to be covered because they don't decay in the elements? (this is also a question relevant to the last sentence under your second heading).

I would change your second heading to "Architecture and Significance" (or something like that).

Specify where the Swalley Canal Bridge is located.

Style:

There is a lot of passive voice in the article, such as "was constructed," "was replaced," etc. I'd like you to go through and try to eliminate all instances of passive voice by specifying who was the agent.

"loosing" should be "losing" in the second to last sentence under the first heading.

References:

These all looked good!