Talk:Robert Parker Coffin Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Robert Parker Coffin Bridge
Robert Parker Coffin Bridge

5x expanded by HueSatLum (talk). Self-nominated at 04:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: No - Not done yet.
Overall: Waiting on QPQ and a replacement source. The hook is great and present in the article and source. SounderBruce 06:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review! I've added my QPQ and replaced BridgeReports with an official government source. ~huesatlum 02:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WT:DYK#Template:Did you know/Queue/3 Jan 28
    . At this point, the hook fails The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change. It's true that if it's "more than 40" today, it'll always be "more than 40", but the closer this is tied to a specific number, the less it complies with the spirit of that rule. I think we're also close to "D6 ... unresolved edit-warring".
    • @RoySmith and Bruxton: I appreciate the attention to detail on this. I didn't mean to derail this nomination -- I thought I was just correcting a slight misunderstanding. I'm struggling to understand what the exact concern is here: that the number 40 may be inaccurate, or that the number 40 is overly precise for a Wikipedia article (or a DYK hook)? If it's the former, I've found half a dozen sources that support the fact that there have been at least 40 as of September 2022 (and I'm not aware of any sources that specifically contradict this, just some that are less precise). But if it's the latter, I can be convinced that that's the right approach and change it back to "dozens". ~huesatlum 02:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi. I'm tied up in other stuff at the moment so I don't have time to dive into the details right now, but I feel your frustration and didn't want to leave you hanging. Once something hits a queue, the clock is ticking for when it hits the main page. The first priority is to make sure the hooks are correct. If we can iron out questions on the fly, that's great, but once things get complicated, the easiest thing is to just replace the hook. Once the hook is unpromoted, we can work on it without the clock ticking and take our time to make sure we get it right. That's really all I was doing here. It doesn't sound like there's any fundamental problem that'll be hard to fix, but I wanted to get this off the clock so we could make sure it's right. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. I am frustrated that I was never notified and arrived to the discussion late, but it was an honest mistake and there's nothing that can be done now. Once I can get a clearer picture of what the problem is, I will be happy to work to resolve it and get this back on track. ~huesatlum 03:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HueSatLum: Hello and thanks for the message. I think the issue is one of accuracy. We settled on the word dozens because of the many conflicting figures in articles. When you disputed the figure and wanted to state 40 bridge strikes as a specific number - we cannot find agreement in sources for that figure. Bruxton (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: I searched Google News and a news database for "long grove" bridge between September 1, 2022 and now. These are all the results I found that specify the number of strikes:

Extended content

While they are not perfectly consistent, they all support the sentence in the article that there have been at least 40 bridge strikes as of September 2022 (since the one figure under 40 says "at least"). It's possible my search missed some -- are there other sources you're aware of that contradict the number 40? ~huesatlum 03:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few.
Over 30 times September 26
32 Times September 26
30 times September 27
I think someone else will have to make a decision about this. Over 40 may be the most accurate figure based on the majority of references but I will let another prep builder decide. Bruxton (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that those all say "at least" or "more than" or the like, but they are good to find. I will respect whichever figure the prep/queue builders decide, but at this point I don't think there's anything preventing this nomination from going back on the Approved page. @SounderBruce or Bruxton: could one of you restore the tick if you have no objections? Thanks, ~huesatlum 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or anyone could give a re-review, really -- second opinions welcome. ~huesatlum 03:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I think 40 is a number repeated in many sources. I see that a few other sources claim less than 40. I will approve 40 based on the fact that it is repeated in more sources. I think that the hook saying dozens is also reasonable. Good article! Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Robert Parker Coffin Bridge/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 19:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

Overall writing quality and MOS compliance (Good Article criterion 1)
Intro, "formerly known as the Buffalo Creek Bridge and also known as the Long Grove Bridge": unsourced and not a summary of later material.
I removed Long Grove Bridge since it doesn't seem to be widely used, and added "Buffalo Creek Bridge" with a source to the body. ~huesatlum 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Intro, "A 2018 collision closed the span for two years as it was reconstructed and reinforced with steel,": I believe this to be inaccurate. My reading of the sources is that the steel protective structure is separate from the bridge itself, not reinforcement for it.
I clarified that it was the covering that was reconstructed and reinforced. ~huesatlum 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Description, "It is also considered a pony truss": I was confused by this because the lead photo appears to show connecting structure above the roadway. Maybe this would be clearer if we clarified both the heights of the side supports, and the fact that the superstructure is not connected to the bridge itself (sourced by reference [4]).
I couldn't find a source for the height of the sides, but I clarified that it is the structural supports that make it a "pony truss". I also moved the image with the incorrect date to this section, as I think it does a good job of illustrating the historic bridge. ~huesatlum 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis (GACR 2)
[1] "Weekly List of Actions": reliable but primary. Ok for the basic factual data it supports.
[2] NRHP registration form: reliable but primary. Very heavily used; maybe some of these uses could be converted to secondary sources. [2](f) "no written or photographic record of this structure": not in source, and the part about no written record is oxymoronic (the source itself is a written record). Some turns of phrasing are quite similar to the source, for instance our article "the automobile was beginning to take hold" vs the source "the automobile was just starting to take hold", enough to make me wonder about copying but not quite at the level of being a clear problem. The Earwig similarity score was 32%, quite high, but didn't turn up any specific examples of worse copying.
My interpretation is that this is a secondary source for information about the bridge itself, particularly historical aspects, because I think it offers a decent amount of synthesis and interpretation. Even still, I have replaced a few citations with other sources. [2](f): This source talks about the original bridge in two separate places (pages 7 and 8), and that claim comes from page 8: The local oral history is that there was a wooden structure that served as a bridge over Buffalo Creek prior to 1906, but no records or photographs are known to exist that document this.. I clarified to mean that this refers to historic records, and I restructured the automobile sentence into one that reads better and is more distinct. ~huesatlum 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[2](i) and [4](i) "because the intervening decades had made the structure rarer and more historically significant as other similar historic bridges were demolished or became disused": I didn't find this in either source.
I thought I read this in a source, but I couldn't find anything. I rewrote that sentence based on what is in the source. ~huesatlum 02:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[3] National Bridge Inventory: reliable but primary. Otherwise ok.
[4] Reliable and secondary. A good source, heavily used. Earwig found some similarity with this source but the only one that looked questionable, "A simple wooden bridge was built in the late", is also close enough to the wording of the NRHP source that I think it's just a natural turn of phrasing rather than copying. Source [4] has the wrong date here; our article corrects that.
[4](k), [7](b) "forcing it to close for two years": not in sources, which merely describe the installation of temporary overhead truck barriers to replace the damaged covering.
Good catch – it appears that it was not actually closed for this entire period. I added more details about the process from some new sources. ~huesatlum 02:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[4](n) "To some residents, its tendency to be struck is a source of embarrassment or alarm": not in source
I rearranged the refs in that paragraph to correspond to what is actually cited; that sentence is supported by Keilman and Barrett. ~huesatlum 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[5] Taylor. Ok.
[6] Zalusky. Ok.
[7] Keilman. Mostly ok, but see above.
[8] Luc. Why do you list the author as "Angell Luc, Karie" rather than "Luc, Karie Angell"?
I believe her last name is "Angell Luc". A Google search for her name turns up her LinkedIn, where she refers to herself as "Angell Luc". ~huesatlum 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[8](a) road renamed for Coffin in 1980s: this source mentions rename but not date
The date is from the other source on that sentence: ... which was renamed for Coffin in the early 1980s. ~huesatlum 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[9] Barrett: paywalled; the archived copy is useless (just shows the paywall) and should be removed. Other than that, taking this source on good faith.
Removed archive URL. ~huesatlum 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[10] Landmarks Illinois press release: primary and dubiously reliable, but ok for what it sources.
The quote is still from the primary source, but I backed up that sentence with a secondary source. ~huesatlum 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[11] Starks. Ok.
Broadness of coverage (GACR 3)
Ok. I could imagine ways for this to be overdetailed (like listing all the collisions) but this doesn't fall into that trap.
Neutrality (GACR 4)
There's a hint of an editorial bias in favor of historical preservation over the greater practicality of a more modern bridge design, but I think that's appropriate for the subject matter, and not really problematic.
Stable (GACR 5)
Significant recent expansion but no edit-warring, rapidly changing content, or other stability concerns.
Image use and captioning (GACR 6)
All images appear relevant and properly licenced.
Either the caption or the date on File:Buffalo Creek Bridge.jpg is wrong. The caption says that it depicts the bridge while it or its cover was being reconstructed, in 2018–2020. The date on the image says that it was taken in 2017, and this is corroborated by the EXIF data for the image.
As far as I can tell, the bridge did not look like that in 2017, so I believe the EXIF is wrong. I can't prove this though, so I moved the image to support the description of the bridge and changed the caption. ~huesatlum 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HueSatLum: This looks like it should pass after some minor cleanup work. I'll put it on hold to give you time to do that work and respond. Please ping me when you thing it's ready for another look. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the reference numbers are different now that I've made some changes, so noting for posterity that they refer to this revision. ~huesatlum 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: Thanks for the thorough review – I believe I've addressed all your comments. ~huesatlum 02:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All issues addressed and fixed, passing for GA. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Nice article and topic and a suggestion

Cool article and topic. One of the most important facts on the topic can be derived/assumed but is never said. That most or all of the hits are cases where the vehicle was too tall for the bridge. An idea would be to add that. I'd do it but probably should come from a source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Parker_Coffin_Bridge&oldid=1210073874"