Jump to content

Talk:Fort Henry Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFort Henry 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 31, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 7, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Wheeling Suspension Bridge is still open to traffic, despite U.S. Route 40 being diverted to the nearby Fort Henry Bridge after it was completed in 1956?

National Road

[edit]

While US 40 originally followed the route of the National Road when it was created, the two do not always coincide as US 40 has been rerouted in places. One such location is at Wheeling, where US 40 follows I-70 across the Ohio River main channel but the National Road crosses the Wheeling Suspension Bridge, which was built for it.[1] Bitmapped (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, though I do not agree with your lead changes. The lead is supposed to be an introduction and cover most of the info from the article. The cost should be left in as far as I am concerned. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional material needs to be added to the lead. As it is, it is too short. Now, I think the traffic levels should be included, and it's not "too trivial". A reader should be able to read the lead and get the high points of the article, and how much traffic a bridge carries is one of those high points. Please come to some agreement and add some more information to the lead. Imzadi 1979 → 19:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: abbreviations. At least on normal WP:USRD artilces once you abbreviate one US Route, you don't have to explain every abbreviation. So Using U.S. Route 40 (US 40) and US 250 would be correct. This also has flown on multiple FAs. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary comment, Bitmapped, but I think that some of the "wordiness" that Admrboltz is adding to the article is to get and keep the article's expansion over the 5x threshold for DYK. You can hack the article to death after it's reviewed at that forum, but the 5x expansion limit is absolute. I've had to add stuff to articles to squeak by with enough text for DYK, and then that same content was removed or summarized at a later time. Imzadi 1979 → 19:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries there. I have delisted the article from that forum and once the article passes GA status, I will leave the article alone. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Admrboltz wants to go for the 5x expansion for DYK, I'm OK with that. I hadn't realized that the wordiness was intentional. Bitmapped (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-DYKed it. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of lanes

[edit]

The Fort Henry Bridge has 4 lanes currently. I located a September 9, 1955 article[2] indicating it opened with 4 lanes. Currently, the article indicates there were two 26-foot lanes citing a different article[3]. Since a normal travel lane is 12 feet wide, the bridge being configured as it is now with 4 lanes is much more likely. I'd suggest that perhaps the Post-Gazette article should have said 26-foot roadways or travelways. Bitmapped (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, feel free to change that. You are the expert. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change. I would like to see the article improved as much as you, but when I see something that sticks out as being unlikely I'm going to question it. Journalists aren't infallible. Bitmapped (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, true. I kind of thought 26' wide lanes were a bit... excessive... --Admrboltz (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fort Henry Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Disamb. links and external links check out. I have made a few minor edits, see if you agree with them.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    "Besides the Wheeling Suspension Bridge, the Fort Henry Bridge is the only land connection from Wheeling Island to mainland West Virginia." Perhaps "land connection" is a term of art. I have seen fixed connection (i.e., not a ferry) or road connection, but some readers may not consider a bridge or tunnel to be a land connection. ???
    Used fixed connection. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "named after Fort Henry,"->"named after nearby Fort Henry, "
    Well Fort Henry doesn't exist anymore, Wheeling is built over the fort. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "to heavy flooding along the Ohio River" ->"to barges breaking loose during heavy flooding along the Ohio River" - the water did not threaten a bridge this high, it was the barges.
     Done --Admrboltz (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Is it accurate to use the cite map template for fn. 3? I would use cite web.
    It is a map technically, its a straight line diagram, which is a map. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I think everything was resolved on Jan. 29.
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Nice photo which checks out.
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am placing the article on hold.

Thank you on your quick response. If you go on to FAC, you may want to explain to the reader the relationship between historic site of Ft. Henry and the bridge. Good work. Congratulatons. Racepacket (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fort Henry Bridge. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fort_Henry_Bridge&oldid=1202102961"