Talk:Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleFederal Bridge Gross Weight Formula 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 16, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 9, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
May 13, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 26, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Looks good![edit]

Per your request on my talk page, I made some minor adjustments - mainly to clean up the formatting and expand the picture captions for better explanation. (My theory is that, if it's not readily apparent to the average person, a caption should explain what exactly you're looking at.) I also fixed some minor spelling and grammar issues. Not much I can really do, though, so good work! Duncan1800 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

  • Of course, I'm always looking for more feedback about my writing style. Pretty much all of the articles I have created (as new, original articles) have been solely edited by myself, save for a few minor copyedits by other editors. I've already listed this article for peer review, however only one other editor gave any recommendations. A lot of my articles are of special interest, and not many people have the knowledge to give proper criticism outside of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
  • I don't write a lot outside of Wikipedia.
  • Not really, I just try to follow the Manual of Style and other guidelines as much as I can. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    "(or more specifically, an algebraic equation)" -- Not necessary to be that specific, especially in the lead. I think the first two paragraphs of the explanation can be combined, and the analogy removed... the average reader should understand the physical implications of the distribution of weight on members of a bridge without having to mention thin ice. Does the law mention the reasons behind the formula? If so, it may be wise to cite that paragraph with the law. "Although" should be removed from the beginning of the 3rd sentence in the "Bridge collapse" section. Some commas are in odd places in that section as well.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Is there a reference for the table, or is that just a result of plugging in numbers into the formula? I sort of want to know what makes the configurations unrealistic.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Surely there were reasons to enact weight limit legislation before 1975. The history of weight limits dates back to at least the 1950s, when the government did load testing on sample bridges to see how the Interstate Highway System should be built. The law may or may not have been an offshoot of that directive. The Oakville, Washington incident seems to be out of place. If the prose around it can be rewritten to say that it's an example of what can happen should weight limits not be observed, that would make the article flow better.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    See concern in section 2
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


Good luck! —Rob (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

1. Hmmm, I kinda like the thin ice analogy. I have seen it used multiple times while researching this topic. I'll have to recheck, but from what I remember the official wording of the law itself does not mention the reasons for this law. However, the reasons are mentioned multiple times in other areas of the DOT and FHWA websites.

2. There are plenty of bridge formula tables to be found. I did indeed copy this PDF file, and when I plugged in the shorter wheelbases this calculator from the FHWA told me "unrealistic configuration" which makes sense because you can't cram that many axles into such a short distance.

3. Yes, that point was mentioned at Peer Review. I can't remember where, but the only mention I found before 1975 was that the formula was invented in the 40s but wasn't enacted as law until 75. Yes, there were weight limits before then, however, there was no bridge formula which restricted the weight-to-length ratio, as far as I can tell. I'll see what I can dig up.

I'll work on the minor issues and wait for your response on these points. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I've been busy. I've crossed out a lot of things. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, it took a lot of digging but I finally found it! According to this FHWA report the first weight limits were enacted by a few states in 1914, however, federal weight limits were set in 1956 at 73,280 lbs. In 1964 the Highway Research Board recommended to congress that weight limits be set based on a bridge formula table. Not until 1974 was the limit raised to 80,000 lb in conjunction with the federal bridge formula limits. I will incorporate this info into the article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly what I was waiting for. Thanks for being patient! —Rob (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worried from the UK ![edit]

Interesting article; but I live in the UK where I don't believe such a formula exists; I have seen "Maximum Axle Weight" signs as well as "Gross Weight" but nothing relating length to weight:

  • Are UK bridges built extra tough to obviate the need for such a formula ?
  • Do UK lorries cross bridges on tippy-toe ?
  • Are we in the UK living on borrowed time ?

GrahamHardy (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin[edit]

Interesting article. Guess this finally answers Calvin's question. Shreevatsa (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, you beat me to it! Can't the article just say "They drive trucks of increasing size over the bridge until it breaks. Then they weigh the last truck and rebuild the bridge". :P 172.162.31.91 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"mathematical"[edit]

It's a bit depressing that many people—in fact even many educated people—think this sort of thing is an example of what mathematics is.

I wonder if we should somehow rephrase the term "mathematical formula" in the first sentence of this article. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't "mathematical" then what is it? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening phrasing[edit]

"a mathematical formula in use in the United States by truck drivers and United States Department of Transportation (DOT) officials" sounds rather awkward, what with the double mention of "United States", but the first use makes it more precise, and abbreviating the second (via piped redirect) to "Department of Transportation" would raise questions of "which DOT?". I don't know how to fix this, just that it looks like it needs fixing. - The Bushranger (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to have been fixed GrahamHardy (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula. 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) 05:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Florida DOT Dead links[edit]

The bridge weight limit sign caption includes a reference to a dead link on the Florida DOT site. I believe the current equivalent is http://www.fdot.gov/maintenance/STR/LR/2006_Load_Rating_Manual_10-19-06.pdf but I am not certain. I'm also not familiar with using the dead link template. Please advise how to update. --Eplack (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula. 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) 14:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

consecutive axles?[edit]

This may sound silly but the term "consecutive axles" is used throughout the article without ever being defined. Does that simply mean each and every pair, ie a 5 axle vehicle has 10 sets of "consecutive axles" to consider. Are there such things as non-consecutive axles?

Gjxj (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weight[edit]

Bridge formula 174.87.148.14 (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_Bridge_Gross_Weight_Formula&oldid=1199315929"