Talk:Alconétar Bridge/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Elekhh (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Heritage conservation and protection coverage is minimal due to lack of sources.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Better map could add significant value to the article by indicating the position of the bridge relative to the river, roman roads and important localities.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Started review. Comments to follow. Elekhh (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the article, and I believe that with some further work it can be brought to GA status. Please see comments below. If these are addressed, the article can be promoted.

• Coverage of the topic. Several important aspects of the topic are not covered sufficiently:
  • The role of the bridge should be explained in more detail. Was it mainly military or commercial? Some of the information can be sourced from the Via de la Plata article.
  • More information about the construction materials should be provided: ie. location of quarry, colour and size of the stones.
  • Given that the bridge is since considerable time only a ruin, i.e. cultural heritage, more information about conservation measures and heritage protection should be provided. Since when is it listed? What grade of heritage protection does it have? Current source appears unreliable as it indicates false location in "Castilla y León". This appears to be a better source: [1]
• Lead: It should be at least 2 paragraphs per WP:LEAD. It should provide better overview of the topic, for instance more information about the role of the bridge, as described in the section Location and road access (i.e. South-North Mérida to Astorga). The length of the bridge should also appear in the lead. The statement that it should not be confused with the monumental Alcántara Bridge further downstream is itself confusing without enough context and I would suggest removing it from the lead and mentioning it in the Location and road access section. Fixed.
• MOS issues:
  • Order of Appendix sections per MOS:APPENDIX. Fixed.
  • Lead:arguably. see WP:Weasel word. Fixed.
  • Disambiguation: the wikilink Almonte does only lead to a disambiguation page where there is no link to Almonte River. Fixed.
  • Wording: Why are the arches extraordinary? (History section, first paragraph) Why are the engravings "excellent"? (History section, 5th paragraph). Fixed.
  • Some of the captions are too long, see WP:CAP Fixed.
  • External link "Traianus" does not appear to meet WP:EL criteria. I am not convinced that it adds value to the article. Fixed.
• Further improvements. Below are some suggestions regarding possible improvements to the article towards FA status. These will not affect the GA assessment (as other similar recent GA articles also do not meet such quality standars), however would be nice to have them addressed now as well.
  • The map only provides minimal information, and could be much improved. Geographic map, indicating topography and rivers, as well as major roads and localities would be better. For instance like File:Spain topo.png or File:Hispania roads.svg.
  • Recorded measurements table: layout is counterintuitive. Maybe the data could be arranged horizontally?

I am putting the review on hold for about a week in the hope that the above concerns can be addressed. Elekhh (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT

• Coverage of the topic
  • The role of the bridge: None of the authors specifically deals with this question, and it is extremely unlikely that any information from ancient sources has passed down to us which went unnoticed by them. Thus, trying to avoid synthesis, I added a general remark by O'Connor on the role of the Via de la Plata, but was cautious not to attribute a specific commercial or military role to the structure.
  • Lead: expanded on general role of the bridge and its road
  • Construction materials: the source was "local" (added), no more details were given. Information on the size of the ashlar stones was provided by Galliazzo only who, however, gives a fix set of measurements (0,45 x 1,08, 0,60 m) which runs contrary to the evidently varied shape of the stones as shown on the pics. Therefore, I did not include the figure.
  • Status and conservation methods: For the former, I took your source instead (a direct link does not work though). All printed references are silent on this question. Mr. Durán Fuentes (author of the 2004 book), whom I consulted, could not help me, either. My impression is that the relocation was not done by archaeologists, but by the engineers of the dam building project, which makes it unlikely that anything was ever published on it.
• MOS issues:
  • I made the changes suggested - with one exception: I found it necessary to retain the long caption "Elevation of pier no. 3" as the question of the segmental shape of the original Roman arches, and the method they are determined by modern scholars, lies at the center of the whole article and is instrumental for understanding why the bridge is notable. Besides, without such an explanatory caption, the whole drawing would be in fact superfluous, given that the pier is already shown in the colour image above.
• Further improvements.
  • A case for consistency can be made as all articles on Roman bridges use in fact this location map, but I would prefer one of suggested, too, if only I knew how to integrate the coordinates of the bridge. Do you know how to do that?
    • I don't think any of the two examples is perfect as a locator map. I would rather just suggest to edit File:Hispania roads.svg and simply add a location dot and label. It could be included in the Location and road access section. Elekhh (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Recorded measurements table: Good point. Unfortunately, a horizontal table would take two or three lines, thus lacking even more visual clarity. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe two lines could work (i.e. south shore until the middle, and middle until north shore). Or maybe a horizontal scrollbar? Elekhh (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gun Powder Ma for the improvements. As result of the changes, some new issues arised:

• Via de la Plata, the most important north-south connection in western Hispania in the lead is unreferenced.

• Added reference.

• [Tagus]... the largest river of the Iberian peninsula is also unreferenced. As far I know there are often multiple claims of "largest river" given that the size of a river can refer to its length, area of its basin or volume of water. It will need to be clarified under which aspect is the Tagus the largest.

• True. I changed it to "longest river". As this is a pretty straightforward criteria, I believe the link to Tagus is sufficient as a reference.

Regarding the coverage of the topic, I am not fully satisfied, and will ask for second opinion before taking a decision. Elekhh (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on two things. First off, I believe the prose is sufficient. The Good article criteria asks that "prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct". I've read the History section as a reviewer, and it is satisfactory prose-wise.

As for 3a (coverage of major topics), I direct you to this discussion on the WIAGA talk page. The way it read that discussion, consensus seems to be that an article is complete if it covers whatever the reliable sources do. Also, if any of the sources say why there is little written on the topic, that may be good to include. EyeSerene's comment seems to make the most sense: "It's ultimately the reader we're trying to serve, so I think we need to consider how they'd react to an obvious gap. If a section is missing, is it because no information exists? Or is the author's research insufficient? If the former, why is there no information?" Of course, if nothing is written on why nothing is written, not much can be done, and by that discussion's same principles, the article is "complete". I consider 3a to be my weak point in reviewing, however, so you may want a third opinion. Mm40 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Mm40. Elekhh (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• The thing is gaps in the history of the bridge, including its historic role, are a function of the fragmentary state of transmitted ancient and medieval sources. This structure, as much as any other Roman bridge, is not the Golden Gate Bridge constructed in the full light of history and human recording. ;-) Thus, no secondary reference reports anything on the millenium stretching from 100 to 1200 AD (!) simply because our primary sources are utterly silent on that period. Please note that the documentation of the history of the GA Roman Limyra Bridge, which was discovered only in the 19th century, is actually far worse. On a personal note, I pressed out as much information from Durán, Prieto and Galliazzo (the main sources) as possible, and I am anxious to not include minor details which are of little significance to the reader and below the criteria of notability. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Only the lack of info on heritage protection and conservation remains of concern. In terms of precedents I acknowledge that Limyra Bridge has been recently promoted to GA status with similar shortcomings. Elekhh (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• What exactly is of "concern"? The status of the bridge has been included and further searches for more details yield no more worthwhile results. Nor do the main source on Roman bridges, O'Connor (1993) and Galliazzo (1995), refer to the subject. Nor do any other of the Spanish scholars like Durán, Fernández or Prieto find it noteworthy. And to be honest, after creating two thirds of the articles on Roman bridges in this Wikipedia, I can state with some confidence that scholarly literature generally cares little about dwelling on cultural status ratings, particularly when this status is not particularly high as "patrimonio histórico" is. And none of them mentions any conservation works in connection with the Alconétar Bridge because classicists and engineers only do so if these works a) were actually done in the past b) and if they changed in some meaningful way the original fabric. As for the Limyra Bridge, it enjoys still no protection at all (personal information by the Austrian chief archaeologist from 12/2009), so I am afraid I don't know what you mean with "similar shortcomings". I would like to hear a third opinion as well. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • To clarify the above comment, I will repeat what I said at the beginning of the review, that given that Alconétar Bridge is since considerable time only a ruin, and as such its present day value lies in the realm of cultural heritage, as formally recognised in the first half of the 20th century, and moreover, significant conservation work has been done while relocating the bridge in the second half of the 20th century, I would consider that the information provided within the article about details of the conservation works and heritage protection is somewhat underrepresented. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that there is a lack of accessible information on the topic of heritage protection in Spain, and this is reflected on Wikipedia. In contrast, for countries which provide more online info on heritage (such as the UK and US), there is a multitude of Wikipedia articles on the topic. In consequence, by many of the articles on historic bridges in the US there is a Restoration section, for example. Notwithstanding the above, I will pass this article to GA status, on the basis that it matches the quality of similar GA articles, and the lack of available sources on heritage protection in Spain has been proven. I also wish to encourage future editors of the article to address the below points, in order to maintain the article on GA quality level or further raise it to FA status. I very much appreciate all your work on this article. Elekhh (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Areas of possible improvement:

• Expand information on heritage protection and conservation works, possibly in a separate section, as information becomes available;
• Provide a map within the article which provides more detailed information about the location of the bridge relative to the river, the roman road, and important localities. This could be a derivative map of File:Hispania roads.svg or File:Spain topo.png or similar.
• Improve the layout of the Recorded measurements table' to better relate to the illustration and logical (horizontal) sequence of data.

Elekhh (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)