Talk:DuSable Bridge/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lead is very short. It should probably be twice the length or so (either as one or two paragraphs). Remember to summarize the whole article.
- I'm not very good at leads, but I've had a go.—Jeremy (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to specify the country. (fixed)
Only proper nouns are to be capitalized. In the infobox, instead of "Motor Vehicles, Pedestrians", use "Motor vehicles, pedestrians".
- Done —Jeremy (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of "location" is not referenced. Referencing for instance a road map of the area would probably be acceptable for some of the information.
- Google Maps OK? The only reason for choosing them above anyone else is that they show the buildings mentioned in the article. They don't show the community area boundaries though, so I could also reference one of the maps at the city website, though they seem to constatnly change their URLs (see below).—Jeremy (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've seen Google Maps be used in other GAs, and I think it is okay for this level. What they would say at FA, I don't know. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "...the United States." do you mean the Federal Government? Be specific.
- removed… I'm not entirely sure what it was supposed to mean as it was written. —Jeremy (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:20070513 Michigan Avenue Bridge Landmark Plaque.JPG consists entirely of a plaque, which itself is copyrighted. I've tagged it for speedy deletion on Commons; if it survives that, it can be used here.
- I've been trying to think of a replacement for this image for a while. I've swapped in one of the illustrations from the 1909 Plan of Chicago.—Jeremy (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Illinois Supreme Court' is a proper noun and should be both capitalized and linked.
- Done —Jeremy (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Terms like 'double-leaf', 'double-deck', 'fixed counterweight' and 'trunnion' need to be linked.
- I've linked bascule bridge, trunnion, and counterweight in the infobox and at first use in the article text. I'm not sure about 'double-leaf' and 'double-deck'—we don't really have appropriate articles to link to (double-deck is a redirect to double decker, which is a disambiguation page; I guess that we could do a section link to Bridge#Double-decked bridges; double-leaf is a red link).—Jeremy (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When opened, was the slower traffic on the top or bottom?
- Fixed —Jeremy (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What type of ton? Metric, short or long? With three significant digits it needs to be converted.
- The source doesn't say, but I think it is safe to assume that it is short tons. Convert template added. —Jeremy (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of images which take up a lot of space. Particularly the last image is problematic, because it uses a lot of the space that the references need to get full width. I would suggest replacing the plaque image with the bottom one.
- The last image was just added in in the last few days. I don't like its positioning either, but I'm not sure what else to do with it other than remove it. I'm always keen to ensure that images are relevant to the section of the article that they are in, which is why I didn't follow your suggestion of moving it to the history section. We have a number of extra images at the Commons that are linked from the 'see also' section, perhaps I should make a gallery at the Commons too? —Jeremy (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I decided to remove the extra photo.—Jeremy (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two links are dead, see this tool.
- The city seems to like changing their URLs regularly, I'll try to find an archive URL. I'm not sure what happened to the CBS news page; I'll find a different reference for that section. —Jeremy (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed: I've replaced the city reference with one to the Chicago Tribune, and the CBS reference with a 19th century reference that described the location of the house.—Jeremy (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems like I spend half my time on Wikipedia fixing linkrot. Webmasters seem to be completely unaware that other sites actually link to them. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Bascule' is a disambiguation link.
- Fixed —Jeremy (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further advice

The following is just some ideas that are not GA requirements, but just advice to make the article better. Nothing here is part of the determination to get GA status, and the nominator is free to completely ignore it.

The white balance on the four ornaments is different. It should be possible to correct this in an image editing program (it would make it look a lot better).
- These were all taken on the same day, within about an hour of each other and with the camera white balance unchanged. I think that the reason for the colour differences is that the bedford stone changes tone quite dramatically in subtly different lighting conditions. I'll go back to the RAW files and have another look though. —Jeremy (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had a go at equalising the white balance of these photos.—Jeremy (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
North–south is written with an endash (–), not a hyphen (-). (fixed)

Placing article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for your review. I'm adding comments above as I go through it. —Jeremy (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and pass the article, as it seems that you have fixed all the issues. It is nice to get a specific comment at the bottom of the review when the nominator feels everything is done, so I know when to go and check it all. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]