Talk:Landing Masonry Bridge/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comments
- 'Landing, New Jersey' is in the prose, so I removed it from the see also section.
- It would be better if Lake Hopatcong was incorporated into the prose, but I'll leave that to you, as I guess it's beyond a GA review.
- We provide a coord link in the article so people can chose their own map site. I have therefore removed the external link to Google. (fixed)
- 'right-of-way' needed to be disambiguated. (fixed)
- Refs 4 through 7 and 10 are photographs. I don't understand how they can be used to cite pretty much most of the early history.
Placing on hold until the referencing is sorted out. Arsenikk (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- References 4-7 are physically describing the station design, which are where the citations are placed. Citation 10 is basically showing the completed bridge. (Also I hate coordinates with a passion).Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 12:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- For instance, "The original bridge over the Morris Canal and the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad's mainline through Landing, New Jersey existed at least before 1895." is referenced to this image. How does this image in itself prove the year 1895? Ref 6 proves nothing of "The new bridge was open by 1910, and was designed as a two-lane automobile bridge." neither year nor that it is an automobile bridge, nor that it has two lanes. Arsenikk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- From the town of Landing, New Jersey - There's both pics right there. I'll go adjust the years and wording to both, but there's the years.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 12:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Would it be better if we put a note in next two them citing the original placement?Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 12:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- That site is on the verge of not being RS, and using images the way you do is on the verge of being OR. Because this is "only" GA I'll let it pass if you reference the site (for the years of the images), but I would have opposed this method at FAR. Arsenikk (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked for a second opinion, since I am rather uncertain of the borders of OR in this issue. Perhaps a second pair of eyes will help out. Arsenikk (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- How does the town of Landing, New Jersey count as unreliable sources? Its coming from a governmental entity.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 21:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- According to the site, "We're a voluntary community public service, started by a resident of Landing." There is no statement establishing any inherent academic credibility or stating that it is part of the city government. Please tell me if I have overlooked something. Arsenikk (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Bottom of page: "Landing, New Jersey is part of the Municipality of Roxbury Township. A link to the "official" website of Roxbury Township can be found on our "Links" page." - Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 21:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, all it is saying is that the settlement of Landing is within the municipality of Roxbury. The bottom of the main page says: "This website is a voluntary public service of LandingNewJersey.com, a private, non-commercial community service." That is definitely not a municipal site. It may be RS, but then there needs to be some evidence of that. I'm off to bed now (it's past midnight here), but I can peek back in the morning (to tired to do this now). Arsenikk (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know how postcards are not RS in the first place, I mean most aren't made and distorted.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 22:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's not the postcards themselves, its the interpretation of them that is OR. Arsenikk (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Its describing what the postcard does, similar to WP:ALT.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 23:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Withdrawn the nom.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 01:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Its describing what the postcard does, similar to WP:ALT.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 23:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's not the postcards themselves, its the interpretation of them that is OR. Arsenikk (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know how postcards are not RS in the first place, I mean most aren't made and distorted.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 22:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, all it is saying is that the settlement of Landing is within the municipality of Roxbury. The bottom of the main page says: "This website is a voluntary public service of LandingNewJersey.com, a private, non-commercial community service." That is definitely not a municipal site. It may be RS, but then there needs to be some evidence of that. I'm off to bed now (it's past midnight here), but I can peek back in the morning (to tired to do this now). Arsenikk (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Bottom of page: "Landing, New Jersey is part of the Municipality of Roxbury Township. A link to the "official" website of Roxbury Township can be found on our "Links" page." - Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 21:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- According to the site, "We're a voluntary community public service, started by a resident of Landing." There is no statement establishing any inherent academic credibility or stating that it is part of the city government. Please tell me if I have overlooked something. Arsenikk (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- How does the town of Landing, New Jersey count as unreliable sources? Its coming from a governmental entity.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 21:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked for a second opinion, since I am rather uncertain of the borders of OR in this issue. Perhaps a second pair of eyes will help out. Arsenikk (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- That site is on the verge of not being RS, and using images the way you do is on the verge of being OR. Because this is "only" GA I'll let it pass if you reference the site (for the years of the images), but I would have opposed this method at FAR. Arsenikk (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Would it be better if we put a note in next two them citing the original placement?Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 12:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- References 4-7 are physically describing the station design, which are where the citations are placed. Citation 10 is basically showing the completed bridge. (Also I hate coordinates with a passion).Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 12:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
