Talk:Washington Bridge (Harlem River)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 15:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Taking this on. Looks quite decent. Perhaps the lead could include a note on the Critical reception, the only level two section not covered. "Harlem River span" in the lead makes it sound like this bridge is a span of the George Washington Bridge, and I think that bit of the lead needs a little more care to distinguish the two (no indication the GW Bridge is over a different waterway, for example). CMD (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, thanks for that initial comment. I have done that. Epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

In both the lead and the body, there needs to be a lot of tightening around the use of the word "span". It is sometimes used to refer to the whole bridge/a whole bridge (eg. "The span, opened in 1888", "the Harlem River span", "the span was 80 feet", "That span was authorized", "a suspension span", "the span cost"), but other times to specific arches of the bridge (eg. "two 510-foot (160 m) main spans", "cantilever and arch spans", "an over-river span"). This is in addition to uses as an adjective (eg. "spanning the Hudson River", "The western arch spans"). I would suggest not using it as a noun for the whole bridge at all, and perhaps reducing/substituting its use for the arches if possible. CMD (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not notice the overuse of the word "span". Thanks for pointing it out. I've reduced its use. Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, my initial series of comments was lost somehow. Let's try again.

• "The Washington Bridge was designated", if "was" is used there should probably be a date, otherwise changing to "is" also works.
  •  Done
• "The modern roadway contains sidewalks of 6 feet (1.8 m),[22] as well as two 30-foot-wide (9.1 m) roadways", two different uses for the term "roadway" in a sentence.
  •  Fixed
• "Unusual for arch bridges of the time", should this be "unusually"?
  •  Done
• "The interiors of the piers were made of rubble masonry or concrete", does this mean the piers have different interiors, that it is unknown if the rubble is masonry or concrete, or that various rubble was mixed together?
  • All were made of rubble masonry, but two also had concrete. I can see how that's confusing. Epicgenius (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• "originally contained lampposts", "contained" doesn't seem right. "supported"?
  •  Done
• "The commissioners condemned a strip of land", is "condemned" the right word here? Unfamiliar with this usage. (I was unfamiliar with the usage of "memorial" too, but found a matching dictionary definition.)
  •  Fixed This refers to land condemnation, which is done using eminent domain. Epicgenius (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• "between two bridges", is this missing a "the"?
  •  Added
• "With the completion" feels redundant to the earlier "The completion of the".
  •  Removed
• My issue with span is not overuse per se, but more that there are multiple definitions of the word being used without much distinction in the same article, which may be confusing. This is still the case on the current page, and I still feel removing its use when referring to the whole bridge is the easiest solution, given its use to mean one part of the bridge seems more prominent.
  •  Removed In theory, "main span" is meant to refer to the portion of the bridge over the water, railroad, and highways, while "approach spans" are the viaducts on either side. However, since "span" was used for arches as well as the bridge in total, I've removed these instances. Epicgenius (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutral, stable, images appropriately licenced. Feels quite comprehensive (compares similarly in scope with various bridge FAs, potentially might use an in art/culture section but there's a critical reception section which other articles lack), traffic figures are from 2016 but perhaps there are no more recent figures. Appropriately focused. Not even going to put this on hold, expect to pass it very soon. CMD (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for the comments, and sorry to hear your initial feedback got lost. I tried to find post-2016 figures but I don't think they have been published. I've made all these changes now. Epicgenius (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Not as sorry as I was, but I think I refound most of it. The changes look good. If possible it would be worth clarifying which side of the bridge is shown in the 1898 photo, but that is not necessary for GA, so I will pass this now. Thanks for the read, CMD (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.