Talk:Covered Bridges Today

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Covered Bridges Today/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose to take on this review and will be making a first reading in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I added another source which I just found and fixed some prose up. I do have the book on hand, and I purchased it some time ago, but I have not scanned or uploaded any pictures from it for this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

First impression

It seems to me that the article is lacking in certain aspects that I would expect to find in a GA about a book. If you look at some other book articles that are GAs, such as Bad Pharma, A Night to Remember (book), The Diamond Smugglers, Who's Your City?, The Clean Tech Revolution and Cutting the Mustard (book), you will see what I mean. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Who is the author, what qualifications does she have for writing on the subject, where did she obtain her information, etc?

"Krekeler became interested in studying covered bridges, and their lore and history in college. Krekeler obtained her Master's degree in Historical Geography from the University of Cincinnati." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Where and when was the book published?

"The book was written by Brenda Krekeler and published by Daring Books in 1989." Infobox contains United States, but I could put that in the body as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps we could have a picture of the cover of the book above the info box.  Done
• The infobox could contain more information.

Huh.... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion

No action has been taken on the matters mentioned above. I believe that criterion 3a is not met by this article and that its coverage is insufficiently broad. It fails to address some main aspects of the topic, in particular it provides insufficient information on the book's author or provide details of the book's publication history. If the article is expanded and these points are addressed, it can be renominated for GA in the future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I did not even know you added more to your review since you never placed it on hold and I did not get pinged. Your first impression part is covered already in the beginning and such, but the author got her information from researching it. I tried to dig up more about the author, but I did not find much more - but changes that I could make or have made were not given time because I never got the hold review! I didn't ignore it, just didn't know. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I did some additional work, added a few things I missed from last pass and expanded the details on the book a bit more. The review differs from other books in compared to in a few ways, textbooks and controversial subjects generate more press then a catalog of historic bridges. There is nothing "controversial" or "debatable", no political sides or motives advanced - just a humble record of an increasingly rare structure. The additions I made will certainly be of use to the general reader or scholar who wishes to consult this book - thereby being aware of the contents, coverage and impact it has. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Covered Bridges Today/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 05:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I propose to take on this review, and will study the article in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

First reading

Some changes and improvements have been made since the last review. Here are a few points I noticed -

• "Krekeler became interested in studying covered bridges, and their lore and history in college." - might be better "Krekeler became interested in studying covered bridges, their lore and their history, while in college."

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Covered Bridges Today covers 412 bridges in the states of ..." - It might be better to use the word "includes" rather than "covers" in this sentence.

This one I think should stay "covers" because it includes a detailed section on each bridge's known history, images, directions and a list of sources for that particular bridge. "Includes" does not denote the depth of detail. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, but it is undesirable to use the word "covers" because it has been used three words earlier in the title of the book. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The book is not a complete inventory of the state's extant bridges." - What do you mean by this sentence? It does include all 142 in Ohio it seems.

Fixed. The other states are missing sizable gaps and I illustrated it, but jumbled the introduction. Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Krekeler that construction dates prior to 1850 ..." - this sentence needs a verb.

Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "A typical page includes the description of two bridges, complete with its history and description alongside two black and white photographs, a street map and directions." - I find this sentence confusing. Perhaps it would be better to say something like "An entry consists of ... There are two entries on each page."

Agreed, fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• It states in the lead that the book was published by Daring Books in 1989, but this information needs to be in the infobox and in the main text as well.

Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• • That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed those issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The above-mentioned points have been attended to and I have done a little copyediting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

GA criteria

• The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
• The article uses several reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
• The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
• The article is neutral.
• The article is stable.
• There is only one image, the dust jacket of the book. It is licensed as "fair use".
• Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional tweaks and checks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Covered Bridges Today. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20141211155549/http://alb.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=5547467 to http://alb.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=5547467

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)