Talk:Bull's Bridge/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 12:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not averse to writing the odd river crossing article myself, and I have distant relatives in CT, so I'll give this a go.

An immediate concern from doing a quick Google search for the name is that there seems to be a lot more than just the bridge, which a reader searching for "Bull's Bridge" may be looking for. This site suggests the area is popular with hikers, so I would expect a mention of walking or hiking in the article. A search for "Bull's Bridge Kent CT" also brings up "Bulls Bridge Inn" and "Bulls Bridge Golf Club" further down US Route 7.

Specific comments to follow. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"Bridge No. 4453" - this is unsourced
"was built in 1842 out of timber" - but the "History" section mentions disputed claims against this
What is a "Queen post truss"?
"it has been claimed" - WP:CLAIM is a "word to watch". Say who exactly stated this
"George Washington and two of his aides crossed the bridge with Bull's help" - this is confusing, it implies the bridge actively assisted them, instead of just sitting there. How about "George Washington and two of his aides crossed the river on a bridge in this location"?

Seriously, did you read the article? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

"The history of the Bull's Bridge is not entirely known" - this worries me. As a newcomer to the article, I would read this and wonder if it was complete. Suggest "The history of the original bridge has been in dispute"

No, the history of the bridge is not entirely known - its not a disputed fact, it is largely unknown. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"that the original construction date was unknown and that it could date from the 1870s" - "that it dated from the 1870s". This source also says it was built in 1842. Some of the sources used are decades old and may simply be out of date.

You seem ignorant of using contemporary sources and records or those within "living memory". The bridge has been rebuilt over the years, how many times, the cost and builder are all in dispute. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the current and covered Bull's Bridge was constructed in 1842, but does not elaborate on its construction." - this sentence appears to contradict itself

It is what the article says. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

"The original state of the bridge and its design has not been preserved or recorded" - similar problem to above, if this really was the case we would have evidence of official documents being systematically destroyed eg: in a fire

Your ignorance here is astounding. It is extremely rare to find documented sources from bridges 1850 because records were not made in the first place.

What makes past-inc.org/ a reliable source?

Aside from the fact the author has decades of experience in bridges, wrote a book on moving bridges and many NRHP nominations on such constructions in the area? You have a reason to doubt the site? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"as part of a development project on the nearby hydroelectric dam" - what nearby dam?

I believe it is just the "Bull's Bridge Power Station" or "Bulls Bridge Hydroelectric Plant". This article has the details. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""replaced much of the lower chords and all of the treenails" - what do you mean by "chords"? To me that's what you play on a guitar ;-)

I could fix that if its jargon to you, but you decided to fail this instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The cost of the project was originally estimated" ..... "and noted" - who noted?
selectmen is a redirect to Board of selectmen

Wiki has its flaws. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

"and one of two currently in service" - I can't find this in the source given
"also conifer significance" - do you mean "confer"?

Yep. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"significance from its sound construction and the ingenuity displayed by its designer to resolve such an engineering problem" - this sounds a bit too POV, can this be toned down a bit

It is not an issue, its engineering is novel and important. Given that the designer is unknown and a major historian has highlighted its importance, I think it is acceptable as it is a major part of its historical and engineering value. Actually, it is a large reason it is on the national register. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The National Register of Historic Places quotation is a little long - could it be paraphrased instead?

Probably. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"it was a half mile to the New York border" - make it clear we're talking about New York State. I think it would be worth mentioning that the bridge is close to the state border in the lead.

Okay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link Blue Laws (Connecticut) is in the context of the 18th century but goes to a link starting with "In the 1970s".

Another Wikipedia flaw in coverage. I can't fix everything myself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I think there are too many problems with this article to meet the GA criteria at this present time. The principal issue is that it just doesn't seem to be "broad in coverage" and some of the prose is confusing, particularly for a tourist without an engineering background. I would have a look through some of the book sources available (eg: [1], [2], [3], [4]) and look at expanding the article based on those. As ever, I would point out I would not describe this as a "failure", rather it simply does not meet the GA criteria now, but may well do in future. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional searches, this bridge is tough to research on and I think it was a little unpolished with a bit more jargon and not really eloquent in terms of the historical context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well to help out I've dug out some of these sources and had a go at improving the article myself. I don't like not passing reviews because it upsets people, but to be clear you took an unloved stub and gave it some substance, so your edits have been helpful. When researching articles, I often come across what I call a "money source", frequently a council report, with a thorough and concise history that can almost be paraphrased wholesale to get you a large proportion of the content. You can see one of these in Barton Road Swing Bridge, for example, which uses a conservation report from Salford City Council. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: You got a part of the repair date that I did not, but there is no "money source" and I have gone through "dead tree" sources in search of it. I cannot write about what is not recorded or not known and for GA criteria it was always about giving all that is broadly known, more comprehensively in this case, because there is precious little to go on. Local legends and historians may say one thing, but you'll find that to be the bulk of such discussion on this bridge. Early records were simply not kept because they didn't require or need them - it was a private citizen who constructed it after all. But yes, I'll try to dig some more up from the town directly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In November 2014 (after this GA review) another source was published and I've added the content to the page. I've updated the page and did some more tweaks. Going to re-nom. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]