Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Washington Memorial Bridge/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:03, 12 September 2008.

George Washington Memorial Bridge

 * Nominator(s): Cumulus Clouds (talk)

Self nomination after article passed GAN. Archived peer review provided important points, each of which have been met or exceeded. Article posted to WP:LoCE (now GoCE), from which it recieved extensive copyediting by Lukobe and Adacore. After the peer review and GAN, I'm fairly certain this meets or exceeds all requirements of the FAC. I'll await the feedback from the editors here and update the article as necessary. Thank you for your time. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Image check, dab check, link checker tool all show no problems. As a side note, IMO The bridge is 2,945 ft (898 m) long, 70 ft (21 m) wide, and 167 ft (51 m) above the water should be in the Design section. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on comprehensiveness. Nearly half the already short article consists of information on suicide and the story about the bus. Surely there's more information about history, the bridge's location, design, impact on the area, etc. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, I'm sorry to say. Apart from the issues raised above on comprehensiveness and balance, there are numerous problems with the prose. Here are a few examples:-
 * The second sentence in the lead is repeated, word for word, as the opening sentence of the next section
 * There is a wholly unexplained reference to a "ship canal" - remember, most of your readers will have no idea of the local geography
 * 8000 should be written as 8,000, "tons" need proper definition and linking
 * Sentences like Construction on the bridge piers began in 1929, with construction of the bridge following shortly afterwards in 1931, with its dedication held on February 1932, George Washington's 200th birthday need rebuilding. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as per Brianboulton; the article made a rather difficult read. The short, choppy paragraphs didn't help. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay - Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Surely the bridge's location in Seattle should be the first thing mentioned, not an afterthought thrown in after the road names? First sentence of Design (oops) Even I could see that there had to be more about this bridge, and that's from half a world away. jimfbleak (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you all for responding, I've read through your comments and I intend to work on correcting them as soon as possible. I agree that certain things need to be fixed immediately (repeating the bridge stats twice, for instance, was an error I recently inserted that I've wanted to fix). I've become very busy, but I intend to do major work on this article while the nomination is open, so if you could bear with me until tonight (and maybe through to tomorrow night), I'll try to correct the errors here. Thanks again, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.