Wikipedia:Peer review/Kinzua Bridge/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kinzua Bridge

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its already a good article and I figure I can get it to featured, but I would like other's opinions on what needs to be fixes, what's missing in the article, etc.

Thanks, ​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 21:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dincher's comments

Lead
It's too short. Could add more details.
I would remove the in front of Kinzua Creek, but this just might be Pennsylvania ears.
For some reason, adding "the" in front of certain creeks sounds better to me, but yet not for others. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kinzua Bridge is located in the Kinzua Bridge State park. I would remove the located and the "the"
So removed. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History
The first sentence of the second paragraph states how quickly the bridge was constructed and this is truly notable. I suggest adding just before 94 days.
Added, was also thinking of using "only". --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second to last sentence in the last paragraph of this section is awkward. I suggest rewording it. Maybe just change to start vibrating to vibrate
Reworded --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reconstruction
The third sentence of the first paragraph - drop the "now"
Now dropped --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The state park was created in that year. I would drop created and replace it with established or established by the state legislature or whoever established it.
Added just "established" --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence of the section seems out of place and not needed in the article about the bridge.
Axed. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Destruction
I believe this section should begin with more information about the destruction of the bridge. For example Kinzua Bridge was destroyed on such and such a date by such and such etc, etc.
Moved destruction info to top and reworded to transition into the how and why it collapsed --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the first sentence of the second paragraph I would reorder it. Give the vocabulary then define it.
Reordered --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...2.5 miles (4.0 km) before it lifted up. Drop the "up"
Dropped --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the last paragraph the word "giving" is used twice in one sentence. I suggest chaning a giving to a granting or some other synonym.
Replaced one with "allowing". --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
State Park
Instead of saying several years, why not change it to seven years since this is a known fact.
Done --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too many alsos in the last paragraph.
Also removed two alsos --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might not need to get into specifics about which creatures can and cannot be hunted. Lucky groundhogs.
Taken out. Never understood what made them groundhogs so special. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are the blue pen edits. Link check coming up next. Dincher (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link check

Lead
link borough to borough (Pennsylvania) many readers won't know what a borough is
Linked --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is a redirect to Pittsburgh
I guess Pittsburgh moved after I wrote that. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reconstruction
sightseeing is a redirect to toursim
Directed to "tourism" --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Destruction
center of gravity is a redirect to center of mass which is in my opinion a better way to word this
I'm going leave "center of gravity" as the article says that it should be used in the "context of an entirely uniform gravitational field" (Earth's gravity is pretty much the same everywhere on it) --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History Channel is a redirect
History Channel also moved after I wrote that
See also
is the Tay Bridge disaster link needed?
Someone added it a while ago (and apparently then decided to write an article about it). I left it alone because I though that it may be helpful as that bridge also collapsed because of the wind. The documentary in the exterior link (which if you get a chance, you should watch as it interesting to see what the Brits think of the bridge) uses Kinzua to help explain what happened to the Tay Bridge. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good to me. With an expanded lead it should be fine for FA. Dincher (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments As requested, I looked carefully at the article and think that while it is very good, it could use some more work before WP:FAC. There are three problem areas as I see it:

  1. The language is generally good, but FAC seems to be extremely picky about this lately and there are some spots that could be made a little more polished - for example the repetition of "Phoenix Iron Works" in these two sentences could be avoided: The bridge was designed by the engineer Octave Chanute and was built by the Phoenix Iron Works.[5] Because the bridge was built using "Phoenix columns" (hollow iron tubes patented by the Phoenix Iron Works), it was often mistakenly believed that the bridge was built out of wooden poles.[8] I would be glad to copyedit before FAC, but think the other two issues should be addressed first.
    Reworded --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 20:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Organization - I think the State Park system is out of place. Would it make sense to move it so the article flows more chronologically, so maybe Construction, Reconstruction, State Park, Destruction, and perhaps a Legacy or Aftermath section?
    I'm thinking about using the last paragraph from the Destruction section as a start to a Legacy / Aftermath section. Can you think of anything else that might be good in that section? --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 01:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the legacy section could be at least three paragraphs. One could be the current last paragraph of the Destruction section. One could be about the railraod closing and going bankrupt after ridership declined 75%. One could be the last paragraph of the current State Park section, plus the 20 must see state parks sentence. Sort of "With the bridge in ruins, the focus of the park shifted...". Does this seem reasonable? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the aftermath section with more info on Knox and Kane. Will work more on it later. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 05:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Detail - one of the Featured Article criteria is comprehensiveness. I read the report on the collapse before and reread most of it now, and also read many of the online refs. I think there are some details that could be added to make the article more comprehensive. Some ideas / examples follow:
  • The name of the creek / bridge. I have a ref that says it is from a Lenape / Delaware word referring to Turkeys. I can addd this.
Are you sure its Lenape? I recall that it was the Senecas who lived in the area (but were forced to leave when the Kinzua Dam was built). --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 01:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked and according to Donehoo and the web page and it is a corruption of "Kentschuak" meaning "they gobble" referring to wild turkeys that lived there.[1] My understanding is that the Iroquois (including the Seneca) invited the Delaware and other displaced tribes to move into lands that were mostly vacant after the Susqehannocks and Erielohanon (sp?) were wiped out in wars. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's a good source. I also heard somewhere it meant "fish" but the "turkey" interpretation is a much more commonly used. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 05:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Donehoo, Dr. George P. (1999) [1928]. A History of the Indian Villages and Place Names in Pennsylvania (PDF) (Second Reprint ed.). Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Wennawoods Publishing. p. 81. ISBN 1-889037-11-7. Retrieved 2006-11-09. Note: ISBN refers to a 1999 reprint edition, URL is for the Susquehanna River Basin Commission's web page of Native American Place names, quoting and citing the book.
  • The first ref has several interesting details that could be in the article (width of the bridge at top and bottom, cost of original bridge, 110 masonry piers, 20 towers of which 4 were higher than the Brooklyn Bridge, a bit more on the construction and the fact that no one was seriously injured)
  • One of the articles on the excursion railroad says their ridership declined 75% after the bridge collapsed, which led to their going out of business. I think this is a telling detail.
  • The park attracts 150,000 visitors annually.[23] I would give the year for this - my guess is it is before the collapse
Added a source and that it was before the collapse. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 03:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several details in the detailed DCNR report on the bridge collapse that should be in the article. The fact that the bridge fell in three sections (and identifying which towers fell which way, the fact that the tornado's course was parallel to the bridge, the number of sections of track, even the fact that the old bridge was used as a scaffold while the new bridge was built with the photo showing this)
Added details about the progression of collapse. Couldn't find a good photo of the new bridge with the old bridge. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 03:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a few statements that need refs (like the date of delisting from the NRHP). I have to go but will point out more things later. I think the article is great, just think it needs a bit more work before FAC. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Two more things - is there any reason why the company that bought it for scrap did not tear it down between 1959 and 1963 (when the satate bought it)? I could swaer I once read something about that, but can't find it so far. Second, I checked my copy of the book "Indian Paths of Pennsyvlania" and there were two Native paths that crossed or followed Kinzua Creek, one used by the Seneca to hunt passenger pigeon. Is this worth including? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard somewhere that the owner of the salvage company saw the bridge and couldn't bear to tear it down. Will look for a source (might be an interesting tidbit). I don't see I could relate the Indian path with the bridge, although I do think that it should be added to the creek article. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 05:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I finished my copyedit and added a few things from the existing sources and some sources I had on state parks. Looks FAC ready to me. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Nice article, nice photos. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

  • "In 1900 the bridge was dismantled and simultaneously rebuilt out of steel to allow it to accommodate for the necessary increases in the weight of the trains needing to cross the bridge." - Suggestion: "In 1900 the bridge was dismantled and simultaneously rebuilt out of steel to allow it to accommodate heavier trains."
Changed --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contributing to the collapse was failure of the anchor bolts holding the bridge towers to their foundations, caused by corrosion." - Suggestion: Move the modifier "caused by corrosion" up against the thing modified, thus: "Contributing to the collapse was the failure, caused by corrosion, of the anchor bolts holding the bridge towers to their foundations."
Changed --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "U.S. Route 6" - Instead of linking to the general U.S. Route 6 article, you might want to link it to "U.S. Route 6 in Pennsylvania".
Fixed --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

  • The image of the bridge and the map in the geobox make a text sandwich on my screen. MOS:IMAGES advises against this. It would be good to move the bridge image down a paragraph or two.
Moved --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a branch line off of the main line in Pennsylvania" - Suggestion: delete "of"
Deleted --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first Kinzua Bridge was built by a crew of 40 from 1,552 short tons (1,408 t) of wrought iron in just 94 working days, between May 10 and August 29, 1882.[2][9][8]" - When a sequence of reference numbers appear like this in a string, it's best to arrange them in ascending order, thus: [2][8][9].
Moved --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bridge was designed to support a load of 266 short tons (241 t),[7] and cost $167,000." - If you would like to add a more recent inflation-adjusted figure as well as the original price, you can find a converter here.
Added a conversion using {{Inflation}}. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 20:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which held the height record until the 401-foot (122 m) tall Garabit Viaduct in France was completed in 1884" - This is nit-picky, but a slightly better way to put this might be "which held the height record until the Garabit Viaduct, 401 feet (122 m) tall, was completed in France in 1884."
  • "would cause the bridge to vibrate" - How about "caused the bridge to vibrate" without the "would"?
Reworded --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People would also visit the bridge" - Suggestion: "People sometimes visited the bridge"
Reworded --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People would also visit the bridge in hopes of finding the loot of a bank robber, who supposedly hid $40,000 in gold and currency under or near the bridge." - Maybe "it" instead of "the bridge" as the last word to avoid repeating "bridge"
Changed --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction and use

  • "Each traveler was initially supported by three towers, then the iron middle tower and its spans would be demolished. The demolition took a day; the construction of the new steel replacement tower and the new spans adjoining it took one week. Then the traveler would move and the next tower would be taken down and replaced." - If might be more clear to say, "Each traveler was supported by two of the original towers on the opposite sides of a third original tower that was to be demolished. After the middle tower had been removed, construction of a new steel replacement tower and the spans adjoining itus took one week. Then the traveler would move, and the next tower would be taken down and replaced."
Reworded --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a move which would eventually play a major role" - Nitpick: "a move which eventually played a major role"
Changed --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since "its centerpiece is a man–made structure" - Unless the source uses an en dash, the en dash here should be a hyphen.
Fixed, I added it (dashes can be so confusing at times) --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "U.S. Route 6" - Same nitpick as above. Maybe the Pennsylvania Route 6 article would be a better link.
Fixed link, but "Pennsylvania Route 6" redirects to "U.S. Route 6 in Pennsylvania" --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • "The company plans on removing the tracks and then selling them" - Nitpick: "to remove the tracks and sell them" rather than "on removing the tracks and selling them"
Changed --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image licenses

  • Image:Kinzuabridgeold1.jpg gives no original source. It appears to be a scan from a book, but what book? It's almost certainly PD, but the lack of source information could be a problem at FAC. Perhaps the uploader, Liesel, would be able to add the missing data if Liesel can be found. All the other licenses look OK to me.
I'll see if I can find a source for it. If I can't is there a similar a photo that would work instead? --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I don't know the answer to that one. Thank you, by the way, for pointing out the inflation template. I didn't know it existed, and I'll have to try it out. You might, though, want to specify the year that you've converted to because the phrase "in present-day terms" is vague. Finetooth (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are five photos of the first bridge on Commons: File:Kinzuabridgeold1.jpg is the one with no source, and I do not see it on Google image so far (except from Wiki sources). File:Kinzuabridgeold2.jpg is nice for showing how spindly the towers were, but only gives a limited sense of the whole bridge (only 3 towers shown). File:Kinzuabridgeold3.jpg seems best to me, you can see the whole bridge and the spindly towers. File:Kinzuabridgeold4.jpg is also nice, but the angle is such that it is hard to tell how the old bridge differed in appearance from the rebuilt version. I uploaded File:First Kinzua Bridge Construction.jpg which shows the first bridge being built, with human figures for scale, the traveling crane and maybe even a gin pole. It is from the DCNR report, but is obviously a photo of a page in a book or magazine (glare off the paper). There are two photos of the reconstruction process online - one is in the DCNR report, and the modern labels on it probably make it a fair use iamge. The other is here but pretty small. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The inflation template will automatically update every year and keeps the conversion up to date. I going to add the magic word {{CURRENTYEAR}} to make it less vague, but still allow it to update automatically. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool - I see the image has been switched out too. I uploaded the smaller reconstruction picture at File:Kinzua Bridge reconstruction.JPG Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comment: I noticed yesterday that the US inflation citation template defaults to a dead link. My work-around on a different article, Rhyolite, Nevada, was to create a "cite web" link to here. The auto-update inflation template seems to work fine; it's only the citation template that has a problem. I'll try to figure out how to tell the template author about this as well. Finetooth (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the dead link. If no one gets around to fixing the inflation template, since its look fairly straightforward, I can probably fix it. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Kinzua_Bridge/archive1&oldid=1140158871"