Talk:East Washington Avenue Bridge

East Washington Avenue Bridge has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 22, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:East Washington Avenue Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 16:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I googled the phrase "Strauss underneath-counter" and the only hits which came up were this article and mirrors of it...

Apparently it is a "simple, trunnioned, single leaf, underneath counterweight,

closed pit bascule bridge" by definition, though that's even more jargon filled and possibly less understandable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The bridge connects East" previous sentence you said it was a bridge. Tense change.

This got more complex... the tense is fine now... but for several other reasons. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The project... The project... mildly dull prose.

Fixed.... I think. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could link "State of Connecticut" in the lead.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Different formats for Bridgeport, Connecticut and Bridgeport (Connecticut) in lead v Infobox.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"was done by" yuck, perhaps "carried out" or "conducted"

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"repairs were done" yuck, perhaps "were performed"

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"it again was closed in" -> "it was closed again in"

Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" the current state of the bridge listed ..." reads odd, do you mean something like "the current state was listed as..."?

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"but... but..." too many run-ons here.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The movable bridge design was patented by Joseph B. Strauss and resulted in a low profile and aesthetically pleasing movable bridge." movable bridge repeated in the same sentence.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"became the new contractor" more active voice, they were selected as the new contractor.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The work was completed in 1925 and it included" no need for the "it" here.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"poor" but in the lead you had capital "Good" and "Satisfactory". Be consisten

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)t.[reply]

"one of the 127 bridge in" -> "1 of the 127 bridges" (MOSNUM and grammar)

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The report defines "poor condition" as serviceable and not in danger of collapse" immediately followed by "Flaherty and Giavara's report that the bridge was in danger of collapse". Mildly confusing.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check refs, works such as the CT Post should be in italics, New York Times should be The New York Times etc.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could split refs into two cols.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any further info, e.g. ISBN on the Clouette source?

There is no ISBN on the book itself. So I was confused as to what to do. The world cat link is 144783273. The ISBN search says "Where Water Meets Land: Historic Movable Bridges of Connecticut" ISBN-13: 9780000143440 and ISBN-10: 0000143448 - but looking up it causes "Sorry, we could not find any information for this book. This is unusual; please try a different book." If you know of what to do, tell me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the article on hold for a week pending the resolution of this comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I kid you not about the classification of the bridge, but the Strauss part is the name of the designer and it was a patented design - hence the name. See, I got a bit of an issue with this particular bridge. According to my book source, the bridge was removed and in my research I found the replacement. The article is on the bridge, but the original is gone and a new one (bearing the same name) is now in its place. The original historic bridge is gone and a replacement now exists - replacing Strauss's design. I think I need some re-organizing for context, but the way the report works is that "poor condition" equates to "immediate repair" needed, but this "immediate repair" does not in fact mean the bridge is in danger of collapse. Though the 1982 report also listed "poor condition", when it was re-checked after the other bridge collapse, it was actually in danger. Lovely, huh? Poor condition and "immediate repair" does not in fact mean it is not serviceable. I haven't dug up any records on the projected closure for February 1984 - it actually looks like it remained open despite its poor condition. And I'd think that $1.5 million in repairs would last more then 6 years, but that's me. I'll get to work on this one probably tomorrow. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I need to request an extension. I've uncovered more details from the archives that the East Washington Street Bridge has been through 4 bridges dating to 1836. I found additional details while researching and I want to make this more complete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think this is a good overview of all the bridges and unless you want a really overly detailed account of very complex terminology and design of the third bridge - this article should be GA ready. Lots of additions made now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, sorry for the delay, I'll try to re-review in due course, thanks for the update. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further

Use the {{convert}} template for converting to metric, it also provides you with non-breaking spaces for free.
Also need non-breaking spaces for things like 3 p.m.
"Hartford Courant" is a newspaper so should be in italics.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]