Wikipedia:Peer review/Sonestown Covered Bridge/archive1

Sonestown Covered Bridge

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've asked for a peer review because I believe this article on a covered bridge that is on the National Register of Historic Places is nearly ready for FAC. It is based on the models of Cogan House Covered Bridge, Forksville Covered Bridge, and Hillsgrove Covered Bridge, which are all FAs. The article includes every bit of information I can find on the bridge itself, and any comments from fresh sets of eyes would be useful and appreciated. There are plans to write articles for the two red links. Thanks in advance for any feedback, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Lead
 * unincorporated should be unincorporated area
 * not sure village is needed, but it doesn't hurt either


 * Overview
 * Philadelphia is a redirect to Philadelphia
 * Pittsburgh is a redirect to Pittsburgh
 * What's a barrel stave? It just links to barrel.
 * I love the link to clothespin. Wiki is great!


 * Background
 * repeated links to load bearing, arch and king posts. These don't bother me, but apparently they bother others.
 * third repeat of load bearing, arch and king posts.


 * Construction and description
 * repeated link to Muncy Creek and fantastic Forksville

All in all, it's a good article. Should make FA fairly easily. Enjoy the turkey. I can't wait! Dincher (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much - I fixed the links to unincorporated area, to Philadelphia, and to Pittsburgh. I got rid of an extra link to Philadelphia, and discovered there was a duplicate partial paragraph responsible for the third repeats of load bearing, etc. I will sometimes repeat a link in the lead and then the first time in the article. The FOrksville links are different - one is to the borough, one is to the covered bridge. The staves are the wooden sections used to make a barrel, so I changed it to "The village was then home to a plant that manufactured the staves for making barrels". Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey. Dincher (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Nicely done. With a few minor tweaks, I think this should sail through. Here are my brief suggestions:

Geobox: Probably the full date after "Added to NRHP" should be unlinked. Lead:
 * delinked, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Pennsylvania had "the most such bridges in both the 19th and 21st centuries". What about the 20th century?
 * It sure seems likely, but I will have to go the library and check the Evans 1st edition (published 1994) to see what they said about the 20th c. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I finally made it to the library and both of Zacher's books and the Evans first edition from the 1990s said Pennsylvania had the most covered bridges in the US, so I changed it to Pennsylvania had the first covered bridge in the United States and the most such bridges in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This sentence slowed me down each time I read it: "They were a transition between stone and metal bridges, with the roof and sides protecting the wooden structure from weather." Perhaps something like this would be better: "Historically, they were popular after the era of stone bridges and before the era of metal bridges. Made chiefly of wood, they included a roof and sides for protection from the weather." I'm not sure my rendering is accurate. I suspect a lot of overlap occurred between eras.
 * I reread the ref and it says "The covered bridge was the transition from the stone to the cast-iron in most places." (in Pennsylvania), so I changed the lead to In most places in the state they were a transition between stone and metal bridges, with the roof and sides protecting the wooden structure from weather. Thanks, Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Polygonal is a bit vague. Would "three-sided polygonal" be better? I'm looking at your interior photo of the bridge to do my counting, which might or might not be accurate.
 * The polygonal arch is made of six segments in each case, so I changed it to with each Burr arch formed from six straight beams set at angles instead of a smooth curve. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Construction and description:

Bridge dimensions:
 * The last sentence says the state "has to approve any renovation work". It might be more accurate to say, "The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission requires its approval for renovation work on NRHP bridges in the state and forbids the destruction of these bridges."
 * CHanged to your version, thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The verb tense shift in this sentence is a little odd: "The work, which would be on private property and require permission from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, was done in the summer of 2006." Maybe "The work, on private property and requiring permission from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, was done in the summer of 2006."
 * I have a reliable source that they are planning to do this, and I then saw them doing it (but stupidly did not take a picture of the construction), so I switched to your version, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'd change the verb tense in this sentence to past: "As of 2008, it is still used and is the only remaining covered bridge over Muncy Creek... " I'm looking ahead to 2009 and thereafter, when "was still used and was the only remaining... " will make more sense.
 * I changed the tenses in the second part of the sentence too, to As of 2008, it was still used and was the only remaining covered bridge over Muncy Creek, although the Muncy Creek watershed also had the Lairdsville Covered Bridge, which spanned Little Muncy Creek in Lycoming County. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations:
 * Maybe just "Dimensions" to avoid repeating the "Bridge" in the article title.
 * Done, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had to work out the meaning of this sentence: "The NBI measures bridge length between the "backwalls of abutments" or pavement grooves and the roadway width as 'the most restrictive minimum distance between curbs or rails'." Maybe splitting the sentence in the following way would help: "The NBI measures bridge length between the "backwalls of abutments" or the pavement grooves at the opposite ends of the bridge. It defines the roadway width as "the most restrictive minimum distance between curbs or rails."
 * Changed to basically your version, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Citation 5 lists only one Evans, Benjamin. That make this sentence puzzling in a minor way: "The Evans visited every covered bridge in Pennsylvania in 2001 and measured each bridge's length (portal to portal) and width (at the portal) for their book." Should June Evans be added to citation 5?
 * Good catch. I had "coauthor = " instead of the correct cite book parameter "coauthors = ". Adding an "s" fixed it and she appears now, thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've pretty much abandoned my attempts to render all of the dates in my favorite articles in a single format. The new MOSNUM guidelines require only that the main text dates be rendered in a consistent format and that the citation dates be rendered in a consistent format. However, the main text format and the citation format are allowed to differ from one another. Your main text dates look consistent to me, but I see variation in the date formatting in the citations. For example, citation 18 has "Retrieved on 2008-09-08", but citation 20 has "September 13, 1970". I'm not sure all the fussing we do about date formats is very productive in the large scheme of things, but going with the 2008-09-08 format in the citations may head off trouble about the dates at FAC. I'm not sure of this, so you might just wing it and see what happens. Finetooth (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * These are all changed now except for dates that are just a month and year - not sure how to format them, so left them July 2005 instead of 2005-07. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much - I am a bit under the weather and will work more on this tomorrow - I appreciate the copyedits and the review and suggestions very much, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I have now addressed all ofthe points raised in this very helpful peer review - my sincerest thanks to Dincher and Finetooth, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)