Talk:Samson Occom Bridge

Unsourced or not properly sourced info

I've twice removed unsourced info from the article, after previously challenging the info at User talk:Polaron#Bridge info. The editor has not specifically replied at any Talk page. Just now I again removed material from the articlee:

• "The Samson Occom Bridge, named after Samson Occom, a Mohegan tribal chief, was built in 1936 by what was at the time the Connecticut State Highway Department. "

• "The bridge carries 1,100 vehicles per day as of 2011."

• And sources which are not specific enough, IMO:

References:

I think those assertions are not adequately supported by sources. I see no explanation to the reader where the "Samson Occom Bridge" name is coming from. And the CT DOT Traffic count site is a general site, not carrying this info. Is it possible to have a more specific reference supporting the actual assertion. I'm not sure if the "1,100 vehicles per day" is encyclopedic enough to mention at all, but I would mind it less if it was actually supported. Do it right Polaron, or not at all, please. --doncram 18:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. The bridge name and origin of the name is confirmed by one of the photos of the historic marker on the NRHP nomination. The bridge name is also listed in the Historic Bridge Inventory (although mispelled as "Occum"). The traffic count data is in a large document listing all state highways. I will try and make it more specific. Sorry for trying to improve your personal article. --Polaron | Talk 18:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict...and after a new move of article by Polaron. I'm sorry, i didn't realize you were editing right now; i'll pause and come back later when you are done. I would appreciate if you would provide more specific support, yes, thanks. No, it's not my personal article, but you and I have been through this before, too much, where you seemed to have sources which you chose not to share. Obviously the name of the article was challenged on basis that name was not supported; you should not be move-warring and then only grudgingly providing a little support here or there, not in the article itself. --doncram 19:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Doncram asked me to stop by because I took the picture (earlier this year) that currently adorns the page. I don't specifically recall whether or not the sign is still present at the bridge location. I also think I would have remembered if it was there, leading me to suspect it is no longer there. Since the nomination was made when the site was part of the state park, the Mohegans may have decided to remove it when they took over.

I wouldn't make any definitive decisions on how to name the article based on this information. (The bridge is not in a location I pass by, or even near, with any regularity, so I am not likely to return there.) Magic♪piano 21:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Doncram, as I mentioned above, the document "Connecticut Historic Bridge Inventory" [1] uses that name in its entry for this bridge. Also, if you search "Samson Occom Bridge" in the UConn Connecticut History Online site [2], you get hits for this bridge. Clearly, the name is used to refer to the bridge and this usage does more to flesh out the article rather than the CTDOT bridge ID number. --Polaron | Talk 13:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 23:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC) GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: I will take this. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Partial first review

1. Well written: a. prose/copyright: Needs work Generally, I copyright as I go, because this saves time and makes the review go smoother. In this case, however, I feel that the article needs a heavy copy-edit, which I am not going to do. Among the issues that need to be addressed: The article is exceedingly choppy; it reads as if you had a list of bullet pointed facts, and built paragraphs by turning each one into a separate sentence. Ideas that should flow together aren't together. In your lead, you have a sentence about who built it, then one about construction details, then one about where it is, then another sentance on construction details, and then a sentence about who built it. Why not use sentences on the same area into one, like "It was built in 1936 by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, then known as the Connecticut State Highway Department, as a Works Project Administration program.", or at least group them together? While it's not quite that bad if you actually count them, it feels like half of the sentences start with the words "The bridge". I know how hard it is to build an article about a proper noun without sounding repetitive, but you need to figure out a way to cut usage of "The bridge" in half. Whoa...hopefully resolved. That was horrible. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC) b. MoS compliance: 2. Accurate and verifiable: a. provides references: Needs work I believe that your second source is this. If that's true, you should link to it. Additionally, I think that the title you used isn't the title that they're using. Thanks for actually finding that! I've added the details and converted it to a template. b. proper citation use: c. no original research: 3. Broad in coverage: a. covers main aspects: b. focused/on topic: 4. Neutral: 5. Stable: 6. Image use: a. license/tagging correct: b. relevant/properly captioned: 7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer: a. images that should have alt texts have them: b. general catch all and aesthetics:

Comments after the initial review: I will do a full review after the listed concerns are addressed. Ping me when you're ready. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Second round review comments:

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Needs work

• "Stone arch bridges rarely require structural rehabilitation, but an alternative solution to rehabilitation exists in the form of a concrete slab imbedded above the arch." - The second half of this needs to be reworded: What exactly is being described? (What is this procedure? Can it be linked to?)

• @Sven Manguard: - I think I resolved it. An alternative solution to structural rehabilitation exists in the form of an imbedded concrete slab which would take the weight off the bridge. I believe this is essentially building a roadway/bridge above the Samson Occom Bridge, retaining the appearance and physical structure without actually bearing the load of traffic. Best I gathered from the text. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references: Acceptable

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

c. no original research: Acceptable

3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects: Acceptable

b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Acceptable

5. Stable: Acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them: N/A

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable

Comments after the second review: Fix that sentence and then ping me. It's ready otherwise. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

PASSED All concerns addressed. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)