# Talk:Division Street Bridge (Rhode Island)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Division Street Bridge (Rhode Island)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a compact article. I'll finish this by tomorrow hopefully ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Initial comments
The only major concern I could find with this article is the length of the lead section. I think a few more sentences regarding the bridge's history and and design would make it comply per WP:LEAD easily, thus meeting the GA criteria
"Built in 1875-1877" - is this meaning that construction started in either 1875, 76 or 77 or was the bridge being constructed throughout those years? According to the infobox it was built in 1876
"of the unity of the two neighborhoods coming together as the Town of Pawtucket" - why is Town capitalized here? Unless it's a formal name, and I could be wrong...
The first half of the Current state does not have any citations
"under the newly formed Town of Pawtucket" - when did the Town of Pawtucket form? Is this old or contemporary?


#### References
No dead links
Ref 4 is missing an access date
 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


### On hold
Looks like good GA potential here. It's a good looking article, with the only real concern being the shortness of the lead. If all of the above can be fixed, then this should have no problem passing the GAN. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days, although it won't need that. Thanks! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 12:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Jaguar Expanded the lead.  Fixed all references.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


### Close - promoted
Thanks for taking care of that! The article has improved significantly. Regarding the date of construction, I assume the approximation is there as the date was never recorded, but I'm happy for a minor detail like that to slip this GAN. It's backed up by two sources as well. Anyway, this article now meets the GA criteria, well done  ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar That date is a span - according to one record it was engaged in March and construction began in October 1875 and completed in 1877. Either way, 1875-77 is accurate because the completion month and opening is not listed. I clarified it a bit though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I realize that I-95 and the NEW bridge don't have a weight restriction.  But I wonder whether this sentence and the accompanying source are correct:  "In 2012, the Pawtucket River Bridge reopened without weight restrictions to northbound traffic.[9]"  I don't think so.  Its a hundred year old bridge.  The tourist travel site says otherwise.  I know its a blog, but it makes sense, and this is not the new bridge.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Division Street Bridge (Rhode Island). 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/20141126161535/http://www.pawtuckettimes.com/content/detour-takes-toll-bridge to http://www.pawtuckettimes.com/content/detour-takes-toll-bridge
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 15:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)