Talk:Forksville Covered Bridge

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Forksville Covered Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Pretty good overall, but I have a few questions and comments.

   • Some of the first Burr arch truss covered bridges were also built in the state. If possible, remove "Some of the".
     • That is what Zacher wrote in the NRHP form, so I changed it to: According to Zacher, the first Burr arch truss covered bridges were also built in the state. I read here that Burr built his first bridge in New York state, so I wanted to qualify the statement in some way. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
   • Covered bridges were a transition between stone and cast-iron and steel bridges. Was there a transition between stone & cast-iron bridges and steel bridges, or between stone bridges and cast-iron & steel bridges?
     • Good catch - changed to Covered bridges were a transition between stone and metal bridges, the latter made of cast-iron or steel.
   • The roof and enclosed sides of covered bridges protected the structural elements, allowing some of these bridges to survive well over a century. Were the bridges able to survive intact for a century, or survive for well over a century?
     • Changed to survive intact. Dincher (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
       • Thanks Dincher, but actually, the Forksville bridge has so much steel in it now that the NRHP form describes it as "altered" in the "Integrity" section (as opposed to unaltered, i.e. still in its original condition), so I am hesitant to use intact. Changed to ... allowing some of these bridges to survive for well over a century. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
   • The restoration work was done by T. Corbin Lewis of Hillsgrove Township, a retired electrical contractor, whose low bid of USD$48,000 was accepted over a Baltimore, Maryland firm's $185,000 bid. Is there a better word choice than "done"?
     • Changed to completed Dincher (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
       • Thanks Dincher, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The following table is a comparison of published measurements of length, width, and load of the Cogan House Covered Bridge, as well as the name or names cited. Isn't the article about the Forksville Covered Bridge? ;)

   Ah the perils of copy and paste ;-) Someone has already changed it - thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The "Name" section contains little information about the name of the bridge. Maybe rename to "Overview"? Also, I'd like to see the year it was built mentioned in the actual "History" section.

   Changed to Overview. Dincher (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   Fine with me, thanks both of you. As for the date in the history, the second sentence of the "Construction and description" section says (of the 3 surviving Sullivan County bridges): All three are Burr arch truss covered bridges and all were built in 1850.[3][6] Is this OK as is? Adding 1850 to the next sentence to make it The Forksville Covered Bridge was built [in 1850] by Sadler Rogers (or Rodgers), a native of Forksville who was only 18 at the time. seems redundant. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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):

   Great images!

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am always amazed at how much information you find on bridges and other Pennsylvania-related topics. Overall a well-written, well-referenced article, but there are a few minor issues to be addressed. For now, I've put the article on-hold. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review and kind words. Thanks to Dincher for his changes too. I believe I have addressed all of the issues raised, except for adding a second mention of the date built to the history section. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

PS If there is a better way to say all three bridges were built in 1850 and still make it clear this one was too, I would love suggestions. I have probably revised that paragraph more than any other in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after taking another look, I think it's fine as it is. I can't see anything that keeps it from GA status at this point, so it passes. Congrats! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

at

Re this edit: "at" suggests some logical relationship between the first clause and what follows in the sentence. For instance, "At 152 feet in length, it is the longest bridge of its kind in Eastern Pennsylvania." But there's no such logical link; hence, the "at" is wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and the edit, which seems fine. Originallly the length was in the first sentence of the lead. Then it was moved to its current location in the second sentence by Tony1. Since he made the original change to the "At..." construction, so I assumed it was OK. The bridge is not even the longest in its own county, though. I plan to go through and make a few tweaks to the article in the next day or two - thanks for catching this sooner. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple excessive links to common units of measurement

There are multiple excessive links to common units of measurement such as 'ft' and 'm'. They are in the infobox and I cannot determine how to get rid of them. Does anybody know how to remove them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmouse (talk • contribs) 10:29, July 20, 2008

• This question also arose in the recent FAC. It is actually a Geobox, not an Infobox and I asked at Template_talk:Geobox#Geobox_Bridge_questions about this, but have not yet heard back. When I do, I will turn the links off (assuming it can be done). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That one small change to the template code will improve a lot of articles. It is yet another good thing to come out of the FAC. Lightmouse (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bridge dimension table re-order

The above described table was re-ordered this date to make it clearer to readers. A column of four mysteriously different lengths appearing first is quite confounding. What dimensions? What bridge? Why are they different? It's not entirely clear even putting the sources for the four different sets of measurements first (which further demands the user examine the footnotes to decypher what the sources are about), albeit better.

The table as a stand-alone is simply not clear; improved re-ordered, but not inherently understandable. Reading the paragraph above it helps, but that is still inadequate as it cannot be demanded of a casual reader or one scanning an article to read a dense paragraph of text to have a chance of untangling what a subsequent table is about.

Do not simply revert this edit: improve the table to address the above concerns, with the sources for the varying measurements foremost, details deriving from them following. Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect Wikiuser100, the first sentence of the paragraph above the table seems perfectly clear to me. It says, "The following table is a comparison of published measurements of length, width and load recorded in four different sources using different methods, as well as the name or names cited." I might change "in" to "by" in this sentence, but that's a minor quibble. Also, in favor of restoring the original chart, I would point out that in Wikipedia articles it's customary to put the references at the end, not at the beginning. In addition, many editors have looked at this article closely and have found no fault with the original table. Finetooth (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the first to admit that any article can always be improved, and thank Wikiuser100 for catching and fixing a run-on sentence. However, I agree with Finetooth on the table layout, and strongly prefer listing sources in the last column. Originally, the table was added to try and show that pretty different values for basic dimensions of the bridge were given by several reliable sources (so even though the article tries to use a consistent set of dimensions, it recognizes that there is disagreement among the sources). This kind of table was first used in Cogan House Covered Bridge, and has since been used in Hillsgrove Covered Bridge and Sonestown Covered Bridge, all of which are also featured articles. In all the peer reviews, Good Article reviews (not done for all bridges), and FAC reviews for these four articles, no one ever suggested putting the sources first. To my way of thinking, if a section is titled "Bridge dimensions", then actual measurements should come first in the table. I also agree with Finetooth that the first sentence explains the table in general, and hope that the whole paragraph explains each source's methods of measurement (as far as they are known). My understanding is also that Wikipedia tables put sources in the last column. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables) does not mention where to put sources, but Wikipedia:Citing sources makes it clear that in text, at least, refs come after the sentence they support.

I also want to disagree with Wikiuser100's edit summary "Restored prior edit, reverted by Ruhrfisch without explanation or cause: See Talk" diff. In my edit reverting the table back to its original column order (and adding the word "four" to the first sentence of the section), my edit summary was "Undid revision 407656141 by Wikiuser100 (talk) Discussion in "Bridge deimensions" section before this makes clear 4 sources used" diff.

I will not revert again until we [wait and] see what consensus is for the table's layout. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

PS The assumption I operate on is that interested people will eventually read what is written. Asking "What bridge?" while reading an article titled "Forksville Covered Bridge" seems pretty unlikely. If someone reads the table first (and I do not doubt that some do), they can read the explanatory paragraph directly above it. That said, would some sort of brief header across the top of the table help comprehension? If so, what should it say? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

An explanatory heading would solve the problem satisfactorily. Good thinking, Ruhrfisch. Here's a first pass: "Varying Forksville bridge dimensions by source". I'm not wed to it, but it directly addresses both the content of the table and its reason for being.

Perhaps a similar change could be made to the other covered bridge articles mentioned. If they suffer from the same problem then such a simple and effective solution begs.

As for my rationale for making the change (being abandoned in favor of Ruhrfisch's proposed easy fix) I respectfully advance that an unlabled table no matter what the copy above it in the body of the article says is simply not clear on its merits. The Forksville Covered Bridge article is a fine, long feature, longer and more involved than 99.999% of Wikipedia users are going to read end-to-end. Invariably, they skip around, as I ended up doing when the fun of reading ran up against a need to leave for work. Next thing I know I'm staring at a table that lists four mysterious bridges of four different lengths and four sets of other dimensions. Hmmmmmm? What bridges are these? A comparison of four similar sized Burr Arch Truss bridges (showing they're not identically proportioned)? Only after taking precious time to decypher the sources in the last column was I able to back construct what the table was about. It doesn't matter that it would have been easier and clear had I read the lead sentence of the section first, or even after becoming confused by the table's lack of description, I didn't, and I'm not alone. Ruhrfisch's suggested fix remedies real-world imperfection and improves an otherwise fine article.

Re my contest of Ruhrfisch's editing depiction I must have skipped a cog sometime after reading it and before posting my own. Clearly my grumble is that addressed immediately above: that the reversion just stands pat, saying if one reads the intro paragraph the table is clear, which of course is at the heart of the problem I was trying to address with my re-order. Not all users read content consecutively and items like tables must be clear on their merits, not content elsewhere. The editing depiction just reinforced that there was in fact a problem reverting mine did not solve. That was my complaint. I apologize for mischaracterizing the edit depiction as I did; I should have gone back and re-read it at the History page before posting my comments at Talk.

Congratulations on a fine article, Ruhrfisch, and an elegently simple proposed fix to this tiny but nettlesome problem. Thank you for your patience in not getting into an edit war. Good luck on your clean-up after a couple of days of FA page fall-out. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and your help improving the article. I was so foucsed on the problem of how to present four different sets of data for the bridge that I did not think about how it owuld look to someone coming to the article "cold" (without previous knowledge). I have added the caption "Measurements of Forksville Covered Bridge according to different sources" to the top of the table. I am OK with the caption, but would be glad to hear other suggestions. I also wonder if the section header should something other than bridge dimensions? I do not think of load or names or the bridge or builder as dimensions. I do plan to make all the covered bridge FAs consistent in their tables, and in thses sections in other articles there will also be information like the year built (sources differ on Buttonwood Covered Bridge by 20 years). So I was thinking perhaps "Bridge data" would be better as a section header. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bridge data sounds good.. perhaps bridge information, statistics or facts? Not too sure, just throwing something and hoping it sticks. Dincher (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Information and facts seem too broad (the whole article could be seen as bridge facts or bridge inforamtion). Statistics seems too narrow - most covered bridges have more than one name in somewhat common use, so I usually include the name(s) in such tables, but names do not seem very much like Bridge statistics (or the current Bridge dimensions). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't have a best idea. Does the word data always mean something to do with numbers? Dincher (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "Variants in Forksville Covered Bridge data from multiple sources"? Or is that too wordy? Maybe just "Variants in Forksville Covered Bridge data?" Finetooth (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all, data can be any sort of information, not just numbers. Here are all the table titles / captions that have been suggested so far, as well as as fifth.

1. Varying Forksville bridge dimensions by source
2. Measurements of Forksville Covered Bridge according to different sources
3. Variants in Forksville Covered Bridge data from multiple sources
4. Variants in Forksville Covered Bridge data
5. Forksville Covered Bridge data, according to different sources

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think #4 is the best choice. Shortest. Dincher (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I need to think about which one I like best. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again all, I changed the header to Bridge data, and the table caption to option 4. I also tweaked the first sentence of the section a bit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Old picture of the bridge

I would bet that you'd like to see this old picture of the bridge. It even includes the general store in the background. Gerry D (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - nice pic (and sorry to be slow in replying). Have you seen these old pix of covered bridges (mostly in PA, a few in NJ) here? It has pictures of the Forksville and Hillsgrove CBs from the 1930s. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forksville Covered 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/GHS/Roadnames/sullivan_GHSN.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311062526/http://www.fmmutual.com/logo.shtml to http://www.fmmutual.com/logo.shtml

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) 20:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forksville Covered 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053945/http://www.dot.state.pa.us/penndot/districts/district3.nsf/f99071963d03038c8525692f0041a9ac/222a7b2bba9cf5de8525790d00447c03?OpenDocument to http://www.dot.state.pa.us/penndot/districts/district3.nsf/f99071963d03038c8525692f0041a9ac/222a7b2bba9cf5de8525790d00447c03?OpenDocument

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) 18:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)