Talk:Deception Pass Bridge

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bridges and Tunnels Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Mid-importance).

Gallery

SounderBruce appears to oppose the gallery of 3 photos that I recently added to the article. The infobox is too long to add any additional photos to the article, and there are clearly relevant ones. WP:GALLERY says "[they] should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." There is not space, and I think a gallery is an improvement to the article. ––FormalDude talk 11:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a link to the Commons gallery that provides greater benefit to the article than the gallery, which has been chosen for purely aesthetic reasons. The second paragraph of WP:GALLERY is pretty clear on the need for a selection criteria, clear and concise reasoning, and only including galleries when there's a subject that cannot be described in text. A bridge with a conventional design is not going to be difficult to describe in text. Sounder Bruce 21:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can link to the Commons gallery and have a gallery of our own, there's no rule against that. The only reason we can't include the Commons gallery here is because it would be excessive at seven photos. Three photos though is fine, and I used those three specifically because of their relevance, not their aesthetics–though I am open to other suggestions. WP:GALLERY also says some subjects easily lend themselves to image-heavy articles for which image galleries are suitable. A historic landmark bridge is most certainly one of those subjects. ––FormalDude talk 05:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Both views have merit and I'll let you find a consensus here but adding my reading of WP:GALLERY:

"if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" & "add to the reader's understanding of the subject": I'm no bridge specialist and personally think this one looks quite unique. FormalDude's proposed 1st picture [[1]] adds a perspective I can't see in the current article and adds great value (I mean it's an article only about a bridge so pictures will always give you a better idea than a thousand words - also it's not like the article is too empty or too busy and it entirely destroys the balance).
"we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging" & "without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images": I'd agree the 2 other pictures and their captions probably don't add as much value and are a bit repetitive (the fog on the bridge is not a bad picture but could really be any bridge so it doesn't help me get a better understanding of this one; the view from the bridge helps a bit but probably lacks a better caption to tell me what this view is and why it's relevant e.g. "facing ___" or "it's where ___ arrived from ___ the first time it was discovered" or something like this - to tell a story, not just add nice pictures).

My suggestion based on this: could you find a way to include the first new picture somewhere in the article without a gallery? If not, could you agree on 2 other pictures and rework the captions so that it would add more value to the article?

Hope it helps - and thanks both for your dedication and attention to quality! AlanTheScientist (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlanTheScientist, thanks very much for the suggestions. My only reservation on adding an image without a gallery is MOS:SANDWICH. For this reason, I do think your second recommendation is best, and I'd propose the following images for a new gallery:

1. A view of the east side of the bridge
2. Looking south, you can see Canoe pass (foreground) and Deception pass
3. Looking west towards Deception Pass strait from the top of the bridge

Relevance:

Adds a perspective not currently in the article.
Shows the relation between the two bridges and where they meet.
Illustrates the strait and the westward view from the bridge.

Also pinging SounderBruce to see what they think. ––FormalDude talk 22:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth opinion: Would it be possible to shrink the infobox(es), making room for more pictures along the text? There seems to be a bit of redundancy between the main infobox and the NRHP infobox. The coordinates are given twice, the highway is given twice, construction period is given twice, stating "U.S." is redundant, etc. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg: I just removed much of the redundancy but it doesn't look like that'll resolve the issue of making room for another image. ––FormalDude talk 23:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another option might be to use a collage of images in the infobox, as with Seattle. I'd limit it to 3 images. You'd have to pick the images carefully so they'd display at small size. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude thanks, I think this looks great! I'd maybe use "towards" instead of ", you can see" in the second one to avoid using "you" but I think it's overall informative and relevant. I know the third opinion wasn't about redundancy but I'd personally prefer the facts in the infobox for consistency and clarity (e.g. right now the "total length" is in both the infobox and in the article list). @Reidgreg the collage could be a good option too! Although from my perspective it would add more angles too but less value - this gallery would tell more of a story. And a collage makes sense to save space on a 120,000 characters article like Seattle but I feel like article space is not the issue for this little bridge. Would it be an acceptable consensus to move forward with this gallery for now? I'm sure this article will expand over time and it might then be possible to review the layout. Just thinking that the time invested debating the layout of 3 pictures could be used to work on expanding the article itself or other articles :) AlanTheScientist (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, I went ahead and boldy added the gallery and changed the caption per your suggestion. Anyone can feel free to edit or revert though. ––FormalDude talk 19:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]