Talk:Frank J. Wood Bridge

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frank J. Wood Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 22:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

This article requires a lot of work. It needs a complete restructuring and is riddled with grammatical errors; the newspapers should really be clipped; some of the spot checks suggest sourcing issues; and there is an acceptable, but mistagged, image. I would suggest the nominator read over WP:GACR again, and maybe even a few reviews of other transport GAs, to familiarize himself with the style concerns that come up in this field. If these issues cannot be fixed, the nomination will have to be failed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Sammi Brie: Just wanted to let you know that I fixed most of your grammar suggestions and will have the rest completed hopefully within the next 6 days. JakeJakubowski^talk 10:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Jake-jakubowski Is this moving at all? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  • @Sammi Brie: Unfortunatly I need more time, go ahead and fail it and I will resubmit when I have more time. Thanks for all your input. JakeJakubowski^talk 22:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

    That's fine and honestly probably for the best. I encourage you to carry out all the recommendations, and you are more than welcome to ask for my feedback on my talk page or WP:DISCORD. The biggest issue on this page as it stands right now is its structure and order. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Copy changes

Consider reorganizing this article so that information on prior bridges comes first, then design, chronological history. A lot of this is just sliding pieces into new places in the article.

•  In progress

Lead

The lead section could stand to be longer as a summary of the article's contents. See MOS:LEAD for sizing guidance.

•  In progress

• "Known" does not need to be capitalized.
  •  Done

Citation for "bridge was built to last 100 years" is actually an article that talks about the yet to be built replacement bridge. It does not say anything about how long the FJW bridge was built to last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biketopsham (talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

•  In progress

Design

• Capitalize the R in "River"
  •  Done
• No need to italicize the old bridge title. I see you do this in a few other places; don't. Most of your italic uses here are unnecessary.
  •  Done
• "where" should be "were"
  •  Done
• Consider
  •  Additional information needed
  • Wow, I blanked out here. This should read, Consider rewriting the list of repairs into prose.
    • Also: All structural steel was re-painting should be "repainted". @Jake-jakubowski: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Namesake

Does all this information belong here? At most, two sentences about Wood would be merited in context, not a full biographical lead.

•  Done

• "bridges namesake" should be "bridge's" and even then is awkward.
  •  Done

Earlier bridges

• The sixth bridge, In 1897 The Topsham-Brunswick Bridge was built with a heavier iron, but was condemned in 1927 after another flood This sentence is a wreck.
  •  Done
  • It also contains a User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences error, but that's not the worst problem here.
  •  Done

New bridge

Correct the case of the section

• •  Done

NRHP

• Consider a title like "Eligibility for historic status", though a larger reorganization might change things.
  •  Done
• Introduce MaineDOT as "the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT)" on first use.
  •  Done
• After an initial review of the Bridge, in 2016, from the Maine DOT and the Federal Highway Administration, stating the bridge would not be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, in 2017, they reevaluated and determined that the Frank J. Wood Bridge is eligible The italics are not needed, nor is capitalizing "the Bridge". I'd change "is" to "was".
  •  Done
• "While most of the features associated with the interurban line are no longer withstanding, the standard width and height of the bridge, set specifically to accommodate the interurban line was adequate integrity to convey that significance". Who said this?
  •  Done
  • Also, the period belongs in the quote because it's a quote of a full sentence (MOS:LOGICAL).
  •  Done
  • There should be a comma after "line" to complete the appositive.
  •  Done

Controversies

The contents here should be reorganized in chronological order with the rest of the article.

•  In progress

• On December 16, 1985 Harry Crooker and Sons construction company staged a protest on the bridge objecting to the long lines of traffic that accumulate.
  • Needs a MOS:DATECOMMA after 1985. This recurs.
    •  Done
  • Is "Construction Company" in the company's name?
    •  Done
  • Add a comma after "bridge".
    •  Done
• Capitalize the R in Route 1 (or preferably write U.S. 1)
  •  Done
• No need to capitalize "Federal Judge".
  •  Done
• "bridges eligibility" that's "bridge's", possessive
  •  Done
• "84,000 US dollars" just say "$84,000"
  •  Done
• The state, in their court ordered re-assessment for rehabilitating the bridge came to the same conclusion (January 2023), that it would be cheaper to build a new bridge and started the process for construction companies to bid for the job.
  • Hyphenate "court-ordered"
    •  Done
  • Move the (January 2023) into prose. maybe In January 2023, the state released its court-ordered reassessment of the bridge's condition and came to the same conclusion, that it would be cheaper to build a new bridge, and started...
• "Injuction" should be "injunction"
  •  Done
• Comma needed after "litigation" (CinS)
  •  Done
• No comma in "October 2023"
  •  Done

Newspapers.com

While not technically required, as one of the largest users of Newspapers.com on Wikipedia, I'd like to ask you to clip the citations you have in your article so they have /article/ URLs instead of /image/ URLs. This way, non-subscribers can view the relevant content. I can provide assistance if needed. You are at least editing page numbers

•  Not possible Unfortunatly you have to be a registered user and pay a monthly supscription to make clips for newspapers.com. I use the service through the Wikipedia Library portal so that I don't have to pay the fee.
  • You should be able to at least create a free account with newspapers.com and then be able to log in from the TWL proxy and clip? I will go ahead and clip anything that needs clipping. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Check for errors: "McQuire" is actually "McGuire" (the article comes from the Portland Press Herald).
  •  Done
• The Sun-Journal 1931 article has a Daily Sun masthead (Newspapers.com sometimes has issues of this type, from experience).
  •  Done
• The 1935 obituary was published not in the Evening Journal but in the Daily Sun.
  •  Done

Spot checks

• 4: Information on the post-1936 rebuilding is NOT in this article. Why aren't the carloads of ballast in the river mentioned? The reference is missing its page number (9).
  •  In progress
• 7: Steel grid deck installed in 1972. Y
• 17: Two-way traffic on the new bridge won’t begin until the latter part of 2025. Additionally, work on new parks on both sides of the new bridge is not expected to finish until early 2026. I would reword the article to mention traffic in 2025, completion including parks in early 2026. Y
  •  In progress
• 18: The author's last name is Hammond.
  •  Done
  • On this one, clip both from pages 1 and 10 (not 16!) and wikilink the 10 in |pages=.
    •  Done
  • It appears that other contractors were involved, not just Crooker;
  •  In progress
  • I would say there were 130 cars instead of a car's "entire fleet".
    •  Done
• 27: ...after the Federal Highway Administration again agreed that rehabilitating the 90-year-old span wasn’t feasible due to high costs Y

Earwig complains about mostly the phrase "The Frank J. Wood Bridge" and our quote from the determination of eligibility, though this is not yet attributed completely aside from being in quotation marks.

•  I'm not sure what this means:
  • It means no copyright violation issues.

Images

The three images from the present-day are all CC-licensed. The 1827 Bridge engraving is PD-old. The 1937 tram image is acceptable but incorrectly tagged on Commons. The work was published in 1966 without a copyright notice and would qualify for {{PD-US-no notice}} on Commons, not the library's own "no known restrictions" tag.

•  Done

Encouragement: Add alt text.

•  Done

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further GA Review notes

Copy changes

• Consider reorganizing this article so that information on prior bridges comes first, then design, chronological history. A lot of this is just sliding pieces into new places in the article.
  •  Done

Lead

• The lead section could stand to be longer as a summary of the article's contents. See MOS:LEAD for sizing guidance.
  •  Done

• Citation for "bridge was built to last 100 years" is actually an article that talks about the yet to be built replacement bridge. It does not say anything about how long the FJW bridge was built to last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biketopsham (talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Done Deleted that sentence.

• All structural steel was re-painting should be "repainted".
  •  Done

Design

• Consider rewriting the list of repairs into prose.
  •  Done

Controversies

• The contents here should be reorganized in chronological order with the rest of the article.
  •  Done

Spot checks

• 4: Information on the post-1936 rebuilding is NOT in this article. Why aren't the carloads of ballast in the river mentioned? The reference is missing its page number (9).
  •  Done Added a new newspaper.com clipping

• 17: Two-way traffic on the new bridge won’t begin until the latter part of 2025. Additionally, work on new parks on both sides of the new bridge is not expected to finish until early 2026. I would reword the article to mention traffic in 2025, completion including parks in early 2026.
  •  Done

• It appears that other contractors were involved, not just Crooker;
  •  Done

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frank J. Wood Bridge/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 01:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jake-jakubowski, I'll pick this up. I'll make minor copyedits as I go so please review those and revert any you disagree with. I'll ping you again once I've finished. grungaloo (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Jake Jakubowski ^Talk 02:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm done my review. Some issues to work through, let me know once you're done. grungaloo (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Everything looks good, congrats on GA! grungaloo (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments below Issues addressed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Ref section exists, and sources are generally reliable. Usage of some sources is a bit off, and there's some close paraphrasing that need to be addressed. Issues addressed

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage is adequate for what seems to be available

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Meets NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable, no edit wars

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are good and properly licensed, captions look good too.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Refs 2,4,8,12,15,16,21,23 checked. Generally good but some issues mentioned below.

• I see this was a comment on the previous GA, but the sections could still use some work.
  •  Done @Grungaloo: Moved Controversies into History, Not sure if this works though. Any suggestions for rearranging the sections would be greatly appreciated.
• The lead is a bit short. Could use brief overview of the history and the controversies
  •  In progress
• Eligibility is based on its local significance in transportation for its significant association with regional interurban trolley lines - Some close paraphrasing here [1], this needs to be reworded.
  •  Done
• There have been several bridges since the colonial days - The first bridge was built in 1796 which is after the Colonial Era, I'd drop this, just lead with when the first bridge was built.
  •  Done
• the site of Fort Andross, just below Brunswick Falls, on the Androscoggin river, separating the towns of Topsham and - A lot of parentheticals here make it confusing to parse. Is Fort Andross just below Bruinswick falls? Or was the bridge juts below the falls? I'd suggest rewriting to make it clearer what is located where.
  •  Done
• The First Bridge, as it was called, - The source doesn't call it First Bridge from what I can see, it says it was the "first" bridge. As far as I can tell it didn't have a name, so I would change this.
  •  Done
• The 1811 Bridge was a second wooden bridge - again, doesn't seem like "1811 Bridge" was the name of it, it was just the bridge that was built in 1811. I would reword to say this is when it was constructed, and don't capitalize "bridge".
  •  Done
• The 1827 Bridge - Same issue here
  •  Done
• Namesake section - Ref 4[2], this is being used to source the entire section, but it's only a brief obituary and doesn't cover everything stated here. Please check the references and make sure this is cited properly. Also, I'm not sure what Ref 5[3] is being used for here, it could be dropped.
  •  Done
• In 1931 the state of Maine commissioned Boston Bridge Works, of Boston, Massachusetts, - I'd drop "Boston, Massachusetts", the location of the company isn't really important here, and it's implied by the name.
  •  Done
• The Frank J. Wood bridge was built to withstand any future floods that may come its way. The great flood of 1936, - I'd join these two together with a "however"
  •  Done
• within a couple months - The new story is dated to September, I would replace this with "by September of the same year" to avoid the vagueness.
  •  Done
• Reconstruction and repairs - I would drop this section and join these sentences into the previous paragraph
  •  Done
• After an initial review of the bridge, - This is a long sentence that's a bit hard to follow. I would split it into two, first talk about the initial 2016 review, then in the next sentence say how it changed in 2017.
  •  Done
• Ref 15 [4] is a virtual model of the bridge, which is a bit iffy for a source, is there a news article or statement from the county that you can use instead?
  •  Done
• In 2015, an inspection of the bridge revealed - Move this section to the start of the section.
  •  Done
• were of poor quality - This sounds like the original build "was of poor quality", try rewording to "had deteriorated".
  •  Done
• Two-way traffic on the new bridge will not - I would reword these, "Two-way traffic on the new bridge is expected to be completed in late 2025,... will be completed in early 2026". Framing them with negatives (not) sounds odd.
  •  Done
• Plaintiffs claimed the policy act was in violation due to the impact on the fish ladder - "the policy act was in violation" doesn't make sense. Do you mean the existence of the bridge was violating the act? A policy act can't really be "in violation", a policy act /is/ violated.
  •  Done
• On February 3, 2021, federal judge Lance E. Walker of the United States District Court for the District of Maine ruled in favor of MaineDOT in regards to replacing the bridge, with one exception. The exception to the ruling was for the state to reassess their cost estimate for rehabilitation - Drop "United States District Court for the District of Maine", and I suggest joining these two sentences together.
  •  Done

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.