# Talk:Union Covered Bridge State Historic Site

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)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Comments below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Passed spot checks.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Seems good to me
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Clean history
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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


#### Prose comments
#### 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)