Talk:Kinzua Bridge

Kinzua Bridge is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 5, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 2, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
February 25, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
March 7, 2009	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 10, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Pennsylvania's Kinzua Bridge* (*remnants pictured) was the world's longest and tallest railroad bridge when built in 1882, became a state park in 1970, and was knocked down by a tornado in 2003?
Current status: Featured article

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.

Civil engineering Mid‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 29, 2008

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photos

I uploaded four pre-destruction shots I had from 2001 at Commons. They are in Category:Kinzua Bridge. IvoShandor 05:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a photo of the original 1882 construction on Commons at File:First Kinzua Bridge Construction.jpg. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new photo courtesy of the Penna. Bureau of State Parks at File:Phot kinzuabridge2.jpg Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Name

If the official name of the span is "Kinzua Viaduct," why not name the page as such? It would certainly eliminate a lot of redirects. Gjs238 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USGS GNIS has it officially as Kinzua Bridge, with Viaduct as an official variant name, see here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support renaming the page to Viaduct. Risk Engineer (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinzua Viaduct bridge was neither the longest nor the highest of its type. Please look up the Lethbridge Viaduct (High Level Bridge, Lethbridge, Alberta) within Wikipedia and compare the dimensions for both height and length. Corrections should be made to this article accordingly.74.39.220.101 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC) The Lethbridge viaduct is still standing and still functional with about a dozen train crossings a day.[reply]

The Kinzua Bridge was completed in 1882, before the Lethbridge Viaduct. Either way the Kinzua Bridge only held the record for a few years. --Dtbohrer^{talk•contribs} 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
"oscillated" probably doesn't need to be linked.

Unlinked. Dtbohrer^{talk•contribs} 05:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
"The Kinzua Bridge was used as an example in the History Channel's Life After People of how corrosion and high winds would cause, eventually, all steel structures to collapse." - unreferenced.

I cited the actual TV show. If thats not OK, I have a backup. Dtbohrer^{talk•contribs} 18:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Not clear - are the "overlook" and "observation deck" the same thing? If so, when was the observation deck completed? If not, what is the current status of the deck?

The "overlook" and the "observation deck" are not the same thing. Put in status as "nothing has been decided on yet." Dtbohrer^{talk•contribs} 05:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Great images!
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Well written, just a few issues! —Rob (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote a really odd-sounding paragraph; everything else looks good. —Rob (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

I changed the three-syllable pronunciation, which was not possible in English. I assume that it ends like "mantua". Since this is a FA, it would be nice if we had a ref for the 2-syll. "KIN-zoo" pronunciation. kwami (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the IPA pronunciation. Is there a trick to doing IPA pronunciation, like if you know how to pronounce it either personally or by spelling it like sounds (for example "KIN-zoo" )? --D.B.^{talk•contribs} 23:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are both okay, then?

If you click on the IPA in the lede, you'll be taken to a key, which illustrates each symbol with a word or two. You can use that to reverse engineer other articles.

Also, if you click on this link: KIN-zoo, you'll find IPA equivalents for English sound-alikes. (Not quite a one-to-one correlation, for example with the reduced, schwa-like vowels, but pretty close.) Likewise with kĭn′·zōō. kwami (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Center of Gravity

I corrected a statement attributing a shift in center of gravity to the bridge's collapse. The center of gravity, or center of mass, is a measure of the position of the structure, or equivalently, of the gravitational force on the structure. As the force of high winds caused the collapse, it is correct to say the structure toppled, or was subject to excessive force/torque due to wind. I verified that this was the intent of the refered report on the collapse. --Fbfree (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source? Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but I do not see how the bridge could tip to one side and its center of gravity remain in the same position. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the web page cited originally was Engineers determined that high winds could create lateral pressure on the bridge. The wind hitting the bridge could shift the center of gravity, increasing the weight on one side. Such an event could send the whole bridge crashing to the bottom of Kinuza Gorge.[1] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Fbfree on this; the center of gravity doesn't move when the wind starts to blow. Reference 3 (the DCNR note) does indeed say that the CG moves, but this is a sloppy simplification of a complex text; and looks to me like the work of a writer, rather than an engineer, trying to summarise in a few words what the Board of Enquiry says in many pages. The report of the Board does not refer anywhere to the CG. It says 'the weight moves'; which is structural engineer shorthand for 'due to transverse load at height, the vertical loads on the supports at grade alter in the same way AS IF the CG, and hence the line of the pull of gravity, moves'. The article (as we have it now) makes no sense. 86.178.190.225 (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see what your getting at. Would replacing part of the sentence with something along the lines of "...during high winds, more weight would be placed on the leeward side of the bridge and cause it to fail." be more accurate. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 02:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The engineering term is "second order analysis", which refers to the effect of forces acting on the structure on the structure in a displaced condition (as opposed to first-order analysis, which assumes the structure to be in its normal position). Ruhrfisch's quote above is a summary of the second-order analysis. Acroterion _(talk) 02:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all - could someone who knows about engineering (more than I do) suggest a new sentence or two? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confess: I overlooked that reference 3 looks back to an earlier DCNR technical report on the condition of the bridge, not (as I implied above) forward to the report of the Board of Enquiry into its collapse. The earlier (2002?) report is not (I think) in the references, so I don't know whether the text in ref. 3 summarising the report is a correct summary. Thus, for now the simplest way forward, I think, is simply to delete the whole of the sentence 'Engineers had determined that during high winds, the bridge's center of gravity could shift, putting weight onto only one side of the bridge and causing it to fail'. Then, is it worth trying to access the DCNR condition report? It might be interesting. Anecdotal material I've read recently mentions layers of rust flakes on the ground a foot thick . . . 86.178.190.225 (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image of collapsed bridge

At the end of the Destruction section I changed the panoramic image with an image I recently took of the bridge and wreckage. It got reverted. While the panorama is a fine image, it shows the entire valley and spreads across the article in an ungainly way (my opinion). This image however, shows the bridge proper and more clearly shows the wreckage. (my opinion again) Any other opinions? JBarta (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted as, at most, it didn't add anything that panorama didn't. But the image placement was also somewhat awkward (I don't know how it looks on your screen) and somewhat grainy. If a better image of the destroyed section is preferred, I'm considering moving the panorama down to above the "See Also" section and adding this. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 19:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image you propose only shows a small portion of the wreckage and doesn't show the bridge at all. For that spot in the article, I think it's a worse choice than the other two. The panorama is certainly a beautiful image, but I would suggest it might head a gallery of images rather than being an inline image in the Destruction section of the article. JBarta (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with moving the panorama down and replacing it, but your image is nearly identical to it other than not including the right side. Did you take any other photos of the bridge? I do have another that is similiar to yours, except it is a tighter view of the wreckage. I haven't uploaded it yet, but will if you happen to like the photo. You are welcome to email me if you'd like to see it beforehand. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 20:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression you would really like to put one of your images in that spot. I'll take that as a cue to let it go. I was simply trying to put in what I thought was a nicer and more suitable image, but I'm not prepared to go round and round over it. I'll bow out and leave it up to you. Use whichever image you think is best. JBarta (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sky walk opened September 15, 2011

Kinzua Sky Walk opens at historic site

There is also a link at http://www. examiner.com/train-travel-in-national/kinzua-sky-walk-officially-opens-september-15th "Kinzua Sky walk officially opens September 15th" but the examiner website is on the spam blacklist. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for reminding me. Oddly, I had some relatives go the bridge a month before it's official opening and were able to go out onto the deck (had I known of this, I'd have insisted on going and getting new photos). I was able to find the press release from the DCNR and a similiar article from the Kane Republican to use in the article. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 16:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State park section intro

The first sentence of this section (Nick Kovalchick, the owner of the salvage company, could not bear to dismantle the bridge) was a bit confusing when jumping directly from the lead section. Have edited to make it more clear at the risk of possibly seeming redundant.

--Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor bolts extended with tap bolts

Can someone explain the significance of the following statement, moved here from the section on the second construction? Is it related to the bridge's eventual collapse, or simply to the need to adapt the existing anchors to the new structure, and how?

--Coconutporkpie (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the anchor bolts were also extended with tap bolts and threaded sleeves.^[1]

^ Gannett Fleming (December 2003). "Appendix E: Structural Analysis". Report on the July 21st collapse of the Kinzua Viaduct (PDF) (Report). Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 26, 2012. Retrieved January 30, 2009.

Both, I believe...the anchor bolts were original to 1882 and presumably extended with the threaded sleeves (couplers) when the bridge was reconstructed. In the appendix cited, it mentions that many of those sleeves failed as well as many of the bolts themselves. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 22:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kinzua 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) 11:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Gannett Fleming (December 2003). "Appendix E: Structural Analysis". Report on the July 21st collapse of the Kinzua Viaduct (PDF) (Report). Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 26, 2012. Retrieved January 30, 2009.

[1]