Wikipedia:Featured article review/San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge/archive1


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

The article was removed by User:Marskell 17:20, 18 August 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified WP NRHP, WP Bridges, WP SF Bay Area, WP California, Sam‎ and Leonard G.‎.

An August 2005 promotion, this article is largely uncited (including hard data and direct quotes); has an inadequate lead; needs an image review and is burdened with excess images; has several sections tagged; has an WP:MSH issue (strange section, "The Bay Bridge at a glance"); has unformatted citations; the text contains external jumps; needs a MoS tuneup (example, dash issues throughout); and needs attention to Wikilinking. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like overview section could be combined into the lead with some rewrite, but I'm not sure if the entire set of information in the third paragraph should be included. I've moved all of the images to commons, and removed the excessive ones, but I'm still trying to figure out how to format the earthquake damage and retrofitting images to make them work. The "Bay Bridge at a glance" section seemed like a rehash of the infobox so I removed it. I've moved the external jumps into ref tags and formatted them. I'll try to template the citations next. -Optigan13 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed the dash in the page title and text (it is now a spaced en-dash as per the MOS). I've also fixed all the redirects. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 20:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Just had a quick look, and found plenty of reasons why this should be delisted: — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 19:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead needs expanding per WP:LEAD
 * "Overview" section has one reference only, could probably be merged into lead.
 * Article is full of uncited paragraphs/sections, fails FA criteria 1c-desperately needs better referencing throughout.
 * "In fiction" section needs to be removed or merged with another section-its too short.
 * The prose is poor fails FA criteria 1a, one example at random: "James Rolph, a mayor of San Francisco from 1912 to 1931," - Why "a" mayor?
 * What makes http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/BayBridgeT33.htm a reliable source?
 * Dead ref: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/trivia.htm#Little_known_facts
 * Current ref 1 is missing publisher info.
 * The references listed under the References section should be used as footnotes appropriately instead.
 * In conclusion, this article is all over the place. Fails to comply with MOS guidelines, let alone the FA criteria.


 * Move to FARC, still largely uncited, no lead, MoS issues, image layout issues, numerous tags. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * ''Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove per my comments at the review. Serious problems with referencing, MoS issues and other problems throughout which have not been attended to. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 14:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove Major lack of referencing. The lead is too short, and some of the prose is choppy, as well. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's still probably going to fail on referencing and prose, but can someone take another look at the lead and the images to see if they are ok or what changes are still needed. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove 1c.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I suspect that this will be delisted. I find this process to be unpleasant.  This article met all the criteria that were in place 3 years ago when it was promoted.  The technology for citations had not matured at the time.  I put a bit of effort into bringing it to FA standards then, and I'm not interested in doing it again.  Instead of this process which encourages comments in which reviewers write a sentence about changing an "a" to a "the" or changing the type of dash in the title, you could just make the changes.  Add "citation needed" templates where you think they should go.  A more constructive effort would help improve the article, instead of complaining about its fault.  Perhaps after a few weeks of people trying to fix things it would be FA worthy.  I am discouraged by this process.  It is not inspiring me to fix the article.  Perhaps someone else will be inspired to fix it after it is delisted. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 10:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you feel that way, but it is understandable, you've still done a lot of great work regardless of whether it still meets the current FA criteria so thanks. I tried to go through and tag with some fact tags on issues that I think would need citation. Someone may want to go over this and make sure I didn't over do it. I also used the caltrans facts at a glance to fill in a lot of minor info. The main things I was tagging for were numbers, especially toll rates, and the construction information. I'm not sure how much of the construction info is just industry standard and how much is unique, but on specifics like 15-25 cm protrusions a citation would help. I'll try to go through the sources as well and clear up some of those fact tags and reduce the usage of the caltrans facts as the main citation. Thanks in advance for any further effort. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.