Talk:Union Covered Bridge State Historic Site

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Union Covered Bridge State Historic Site/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 17:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this one; please ping me if I don't get to it within 3 days. eviolite (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2022 (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):

   Comments below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Passed spot checks.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Seems good to me

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Clean history

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

• It seems, according to List of Missouri state parks, that Missouri state parks and state historic sites are distinct, so "Missouri State Park" -> "Missouri State Historic Site"
  • Done
• "It was 120 feet..." -> "It is 120 feet"
  • Done
• I think there should be a mention of the the 2010s restoratiton in the lead, following the 2008 flood.
  • Added
• I also wonder if "120 feet or 125 feet" may be a bit confusing to readers; probably not a big deal, but maybe an "about" could do in the lead and some clarification like "according to different sources" in the body?
  • I've added "about". It's not so much a different sources thing - the NRHP nomination even uses 125 on one page and 120 on another, without indicating disagreement or range.

History

• When doing my spotchecks, I found that the Hannibal Courier-Post source gives a specific opening date of Sept. 17, 1871 which may be useful to add.
  • Added
• "the area Union Church" is a bit odd, maybe just "the Union Church in the area" or "the nearby Union Church"
  • Done
• Recommend adding inflation templates for the dollar amounts
  • Done for the 1871 and 1960s values, I don't think the 2011 one is far enough back that it'd be useful, even though inflation is pretty bad these days.
• "in the 1960s" -> "in the late 1960s" for precision from the source
  • Done
• "The state park covers" -> "The state historic site covers" as above
  • Done

Design

• I wonder if you could link the text "covered bridges remaining in Missouri" to List of Missouri covered bridges so that you can remove that from see also.
  • Linked
• "the three covered bridges" -> "the three other covered bridges"
  • Done
• "That design uses" -> "The Burr design uses" for clarity
  • Done
• "As of 1995" -> "In 1995"
  • Done
• The St. Joseph News-Press clipping doesn't include the portion backing up the sentence about graffiti, which I assume is on page Bridges/Page 3E, but I can't access it.
  • It's in the caption of the image above the title - The graffiti-marked interior of the Union Covered Bridge displays Missouri's only example of the Burr-Arch truss system
• I'm not sure that the source is oriented from east to west; the source just says "east-west" and I wonder if that just means that it runs in that direction as opposed to north-south (rather than as opposed to west-east).
  • Done

@Hog Farm: See comments above; placing on hold. eviolite (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Eviolite: - Thanks for the review! These should all be addressed now. Hog Farm _Talk 17:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thank you and great work. I am happy to promote this as a GA. eviolite (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)