Talk:Big Four Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Big Four Bridge has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 13, 2008.
June 10, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	Louisville Portal Big Four Bridge is within the scope of WikiProject Louisville, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested! • Become a Member • Project Talk
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of bridges on Wikipedia. Please feel free to join us.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.

Contents 1 New image 2 Fire sale 3 Gallery 4 Fires 5 GA Review 5.1 Good article nomination on hold 5.2 Good article nomination pass

[edit] New image

I have another picture of this bridge we could use. It was taken from beneath the Kennedy Bridge on the Indiana side.--Bedford 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I substituted in the new image. How does it look? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire sale

Jahnx, do you think we can expand this 5x, so we can get a DYK for it? I took a bunch of pictures today of it, including video.--Bedford 22:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The pictures have been uploaded: Category:Images of the Big Four Bridge.--Bedford 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's been expanded quite a bit, but I don't think will earn a DYK out of it. The Fire section needs work, I'm not sure I would have to search and I don't have the time but I think Louisville doesn't have a fire boat and that the boat that couldn't reach the flames was the Coast Guard. There is some information there that honestly doesn't really pertain to the incident in regards to the city purchasing another fire boat. Next the section also seems repetative. This article sure exploded after this event, There have been two more fires since the 1970's which you may have to search for records of that offline in an old newspaper. So adding coverage of all four fires would be essential to that sections growth. -Jahnx (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It was after I posted the above message that I added to the article. It's been increased 4.7x, which is probably close enough to 5x for the DYK. It was a Louisville fireboat that was too small to reach it, as it was an interview with the Louisville fire chief on WAVE 3 who said it about the boat. Still probably need to decide which fire pictures are betetr than others.--Bedford 01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I like Image:Big 4 Fire V.jpg and Image:Big 4 Fire VI.jpg for fire pics, leaving the 1975 picture of the bridge in the history section would be my preference. -Jahnx (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm done for today but I will search for more informaiton regarding the 1987 fire and hopefully we can seperate the information on the two fires into two sub categories. -Jahnx (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, this is close to being GA. I haven't gotten a GA yet, and I don't think you have either, so we are close.--Bedford 02:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

I'm not sure the additional photos at the bottom add anything to the article, they look very similar to each other and most are near-duplicates of photos earlier in the article. Paulbrock (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I put all I had up so we could decide which ones should remain; I never intended for all to stay. I agree, that does look bad to have so many. Anyone have particular ones they think should be removed?--Bedford ^Pray 03:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fires

I think this section needs a bit of tweaking - either it's predominantly about the 2008 Fire, in which case the section heading should be changed, or it's discussing fires in general, in which case the 2008 Fire should not have undue weight; my opinion is that the section suffers from recentism and there is far too much detail on e.g. how the fire was put out. Paulbrock (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix the recentism you saw; how does it look now?--Bedford ^Pray 04:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Big Four Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Review is imminent Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 8, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article has good enough prose and flow for GA status, but there are a few specifics that should be adressed, as described below.

• The lead is too long for one paragraph, split it in two. Rewrite the sentence on the other passenger bridge that crosses the river.

Y Done--Bedford ^Pray 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Include United States in first sentence and infobox.

Y Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• The first ref does not state the length of the bridge; should find it somewhere else and link to it.

• Do you have this from one of the books? Can't find the length on the internet, and vital statistics must be references for GA.

  • Y Done Found a reference; turns out the provided length was wrong. Good thing a reference was insisted upon. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Include the coordinates. You can find them in the first reference; use {{coor}}

Y Done --Bedford ^Pray

• In the overview truss and rivet should be wikilinked.

Y Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• The history section should be sectioned up, and other parts, like ownership, included in the history section.

Y Done Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Electric cars are automobiles that run on electricity. Interurbans are interurbans; simplify.

Y Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• Beware the difference between a en-dash and em-dash—only em-dashes should be used as punctuation.

Y Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• Why is Spring Street Freight House a see also; either incorporate it into the article or leave it out—only intutitive articles should go under see also.

Y Done, I explained reason for adding it on the page--Bedford ^Pray 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilink to President of Costa Rica and Indiana Department of Transportation.

Y Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• The fire section is the only one that should have a thorough rewrite; several points need attention:
  • The first paragraph says everything twice, rewrite it to only say things once

Y Done Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Conversions to metric are needed.

Y Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• • Rewrite to remove the quotation, without actually using quotation marks or sourcing.

Y Done Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Do not hope for things in an encyclopedia, rephrase.

Y Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

2. Factually accurate?: Pass. All linked references verified.

• As a tip (not a GA requirement) I recommend using the {{cite}} template in inline reference; this avoids problems as were seen with all-bond references.

3. Broad in coverage?: There is not enough about the rail service on the bridge; such things as single/double track, freight usage are missing. At least one paragraph on this should be composed.

• Y Done added a sentence. Y Done

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?:

• Choose the best pictures, and remove the gallery. And there are better images of the bridge than the current infobox one; put the best at the top.

Y Done --Bedford ^Pray 23:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Removed forced thumb size; forcing the view preferences is a bad habit.

Y Done Arsenikk ^(talk)

• All images are free, but the following should be moved to the commons. This bot does it in a jiffy; create a category for Big Four Bridge on commons too.
  • Image:Big4Bridge.JPG
  • Image:Old Big 4 Bridge.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Bridge Belle of Louisville.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Fire VI.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Fire II.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Fire V.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Fire VII.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Bridge Belle of Cincinnati.jpg
  • Image:Big 4 Bridge Delta Queen.jpg

Is this necessary for GA? Putting the pics on commons makes it harder to use, in my experience.--Bedford ^Pray 23:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have confused something (bear with me, this is my first GA review). But in my opinion leaving pictures off the commons creates great problems the day someone wants the pictures on another language project; personally I spend hours searching for pictures on the Norwegian and German Wikipedia and transferring them to the commons. Out of mere curiosity, how does pics on the commons make them hard to use? Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is harder to keep track of what images are available if on Com mons. Plus, if for some reason some idiot wants an image deleted, I won't know until its too late if its on commons. Plus, should the image be featured on the main page in the future, it is easier for all concerned if its not on commons.--Bedford ^Pray 17:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

It actually is quite good, just a lot of picky small stuff to look at, a fair bit I did myself. Good work so far:) Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to ask, if everything is pass, then what is the holdup? I see what I can do.--Bedford ^Pray 22:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I was a bit imprecise, but point 1 and 6 are not pass, but it should be a fairly simple task in my eyes. Half the stuff I did while going through the review, just making you aware of the corrections. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination pass

I have passed this article as a good article, based on all criteria that were questioned have been seen to.

Further work would be needed for FA status; mainly related to the flow of the prose. At current the article is well written, but not all sentences flow smoothly enough for the folks at FA; in my eyes this is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and one may want to contact someone at the League of Copyeditors to do this kind of work. I absolutely recommend checking out User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a, a great guide getting better flow in the prose—it helped me at least. There are only a few unreferenced claims, fix those and FA status may be in reach. Also consider rescanning the scanned picture; it is good, but the scanning is not (a minimum requirement would be that it is straight).

Finally I would like to congratulate all participants on the work of creating a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have a scanner at the time, so I took the picture using my digital; camera. If I can get my scanner working (new computer), I'll rscan the image. Thanks for reviewing.--Bedford ^Pray 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)