Talk:Aurora Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAurora 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
December 14, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 8, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 12, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Bridge type[edit]

Is this really a cantilever bridge? I thought it was an iron arch bridge. - Jmabel | Talk 08:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit[edit]

I have rewritten large portions of this article and added inline citations to everything I could. There's still more to expand on with the bridge's history, but I will have to come back to that later. Please comment on the changes here and notify me on my talk page if I have made any errors. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 20:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit[edit]

Issues to address before copy-edit[edit]

Speed of jumper[edit]

The quoted source is incorrect. Time to impact of a free-falling object from a given height near the Earth's surface, disregarding air drag (minor) is approximately h (in feet) = 16t2. Solving for 180 feet gives t = about 3.354 seconds. Acceleration = about 32t feet per second per second, so in 3.354 seconds, the object reaches = 107.32 ft/sec, or about 73 mph vs. the 55 mph reported. Also, their own figures on impact are incorrect. 55 mph = about 81 ft/sec. x 165lbs = 13,365 ft-lb/sec, not the 28,000 quoted. If we use the figures given in this post of 107'/sec x 165 lb, we get 17,655, still far less than 28,000. Need a more accurate source for this section. Unimaginative Username (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, I never thought to check the math and you're right, that guy was terrible at it. It is unlikely I'll find another section with the same type of information, so if you don't oppose it, I'll just take that part out. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that article from the Journal of Trauma may have it, I'll see what I can find. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two sources, one says nothing about speed and the other is a dead link. Since the info isn't exactly key to this article, I'll remove it. Better silence than misinformation. Paulc206 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Units[edit]

Intro is given in metric, converted to English. Per the Manual of Style, "# For US-related articles, the main units are US units; for example, 10 miles (16 km)." Since the bridge is in Seattle, Washington, intro should be revised accordingly: US units, with conversion to metric. (infobox also) Unimaginative Username (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:George Washington Memorial Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)

One note about the article that confused me right away. I was expecting an article on a bridge in New York, not the Seattle area. I suggest adding a hatnote to redirect people to George Washington Bridge.

Done. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you're saying now. I've added a hatnote to this article for that one. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The design section is a bit technical in reading. Can it be expanded with some explanations to us lay-people? Doesn't need a lot, just a few explanatory comments.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There is a paragraph of the History section missing references. The first paragraph needs a reference for the opening date. There's a bit of overlinking in the references. Only the first reference by each source needs a wikilink to it. Also, some of the newspaper sources include a "The" in front of the title and some don't, and author formatting is inconsistent. Either they all should be Last, First or all First Last.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
    Although I found the summary on the phone photo to be quite unique... it doesn't specify where it was taken on the image page. I'm going to AGF that it was on this bridge though. A further suggestion is to get the photos geotagged, something I only learned recently how to do myself.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I'll hold the article for the above issues to be cleared up before making the final judgement. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All issues cleared to my satisfaction. Congrats, it's a pass. 08:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imzadi1979 (talk • contribs)

Name of the article[edit]

If the lead sentence is correct when saying the bridge is "commonly called the Aurora Bridge", is there a good reason that the article title isn't "Aurora Bridge", per WP:COMMONNAME? —BarrelProof (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have the same problems with the Ballard Locks. Both should be moved. Interstate 90 floating bridge is probably OK -- in the vernacular the I-90 crossing is one bridge, but the articles cover both the Homer M. Hadley Memorial Bridge and Lacey V. Murrow Memorial Bridge. I'd support a move of both Hiram M. Chittenden Locks and George Washington Memorial Bridge. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 September 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


George Washington Memorial Bridge → Aurora Bridge – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The article says that this bridge is "commonly called the Aurora Bridge". —BarrelProof (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SounderBruce 20:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: Here is a news article from today and another one and another one from yesterday that talk about the bridge. There is no mention of the "Washington" name in any of those articles, and I did not go looking for examples like that. This is just what pops up – e.g., by searching for "fatal accident Seattle", and that is not just what the locals call it. At least two of those three were written for nation-wide readership (i.e., the Associated Press and CNN). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Peaceray (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aurora Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aurora 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Aurora 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aurora_Bridge&oldid=1205498104"