Talk:BP Pedestrian Bridge

Pictures
First off, thanks for creating this page as well as the Millennium Park template. Both were desperately needed. Secondly, I was wondering if you think all 5 of these images currently in the article are needed. I think one of the pictures of the park and one of the pictures on the bridge would be enough. More than that in the article makes it a little cluttered in my opinion, plus I added them all to the its commons page. I think I'm going to take a picture of the bridge from Upper Randolph for the infobox picture. With these 3 images, all of the main points would be illustrated beautifully. Torsodog (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate an image for the infobox. I have one from Randolph on the day of the Chicago Marathon, which is not really proper for the main image.  As the text gets longer more images are useful.  I would agree to remove one of the two that are at a similar angle facing northwest.  Probably the one on the bridge because the other shows the outside.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Given the image that we have, I think from Randolph you would need to zoom in with a landscape photo to make a good main image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We could also use an image of the steel shingles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a GA review, but I have a quick comment that I know would probably come up in a review. The image layout isn't too good, at lease on my screen, and all the text is squeezed into narrow columns. Is it possible to just stick to one image per section, if not less? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What resolution are you using and are you using full screen viewing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates
I removed WP:WPVA and added several templates. I believe the bridge is a work of art, but am not sure it properly falls under the Visual arts project. Comments appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
Dear contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. If anyone objects to my proposal to free the dates of autoformatting in the main text in a day or two on a trial basis, please say so below. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.

Critically, since I’m an FAC reviewer, I want to state in unequivocal terms that whether or not contributors object to this proposal will have absolutely no bearing on my review or declaration at FAC. I’m proposing the action because FAC is an influential process, not because nominators might feel under obligation—they shouldn’t. Tony  (talk)  15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My compliments
I just noticed the map that was added and it really makes a great difference in this already outstanding article. I haven't seen many articles just about this bridge, they are usually about the pavilion. So I think this is a really unique and wonderful page. My compliments to the contributors. DVD 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

On my monitor now though I'm noticing that the map reduces the text to the left of it to a two or three word wide column. I think the infobox has a few too many parameters causing a big blank space to the right of the map. Maybe the map can be shrunk so it doesn't make the text too narrow or maybe it can be moved elsewhere in the article. But in all honesty, I think the infobox should be shrunk rather than the map as some of the info seems redundant. Well on second thought, I just put the map towards the end of the page. Revert, discuss, edit please if you disagree with this. DVD 05:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I mentioned during one of the FACs that in the sentence:


 * Designed to bear a heavy load without structural problems caused by its own weight, it has won awards for its use of sheet metal and is known for its aesthetics, especially a biomorphic one.

... I thought you should describe the aesthetic of the bridge, suggesting "biomorphic aesthetic" which was used. I had suggested "fluid aesthetic" as well which sounds better to me, and I'm thinking now "architect's signature aesthetic" would sound better than either. DVD 04:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments
I have read the article, the GA review, the previous PRs and FACs and have some ideas. I can do a copyedit, but there are some questions I have on that. I think it is fairly close to being ready for FAC after a copyedit and cleaning up a few loose ends.

I also have some suggestions / questions on other issues - for example, It had a May 22, 2004 ribbon-cutting ceremony before its official opening, along with the rest of Millennium Park, on July 16, 2004.[25][1] It remained unnamed at the ribbon-cutting,[25] but before the July park opening, BP had paid $5 million for the bridge sponsorship and naming rights.[26] seems out of place in the Design section (since talking about opening the bridge before construction seems odd).


 * Clearly that text should be moved.

Anyway, how do you want to proceed? Should I do a full review (here or do you want to open a peer review), then a copyedit? Or should I just dive in and ask as I have questions? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, so I have thought about it some more and think it will mostly be a copyedit, but I would like to move several sentences from the Design section to the current Controversies section and make that a "Use and controversies" section instead. Is this OK? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that is fine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, it looks like you two are gearing up for another FAC nom. Just wanted to let you know I'd be up to help. If you need anything, let me know. -- T orsodo g Talk 20:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was going to work through it from start to finish, except I'll copyedit the lead last (once the rest of the article is ready to go). I know I'll have some questions, which I plan to post here. The first question I have is should there be some very brief introduction to the whole Millennium Park project at the start of the "Preliminary plans" section? Two or three sentences on Grant Park and how the land that became Millennium Park was a railyard, then a new park within Grant Park over a new parking garage. Not sure if it would make sense to also mention Daley Bicentennial Plaza? Feedback welcome, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am slow, but the copyedit to the Preliminary plans section is done. I added a brief introduction, tried to clarify things, and think I fixed a typo (Google gives many more hits for the "Pferdeturm USTRA Bridge in Hanover, Germany" not the "Pferdeturm USRTRA Bridge" - could you please check Gilfoyle's book?). Does this all look OK? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PS should I link üstra as "Pferdeturm USTRA Bridge"? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am on the fence on that link. What do you think Torsodog?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was bold earlier and it is in the article right now - I am OK with it in or out. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

PPS Would it be possible to get a photo that shows the support column better than File:Downtown Chicago Illinois Nov05 img 2552.jpg? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be able to take a pic of the support column. Images in this article are a concern for me though. It seems to me that there are far too many in this article, and many of them don't seem to be illustrating any specific point from the prose. They just seem to be there because they exist. If I grab a pic of the column, can we also do some overall editing on the article's image selection? -- T orsodo g Talk 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much - my thought was that the new column image would replace the one in the article. I agree that there are too many images in the article and feel that the multiple image templates often make the photo so small that the point illustrated can't be seen clearly. I also think the captions need work - the captions should relate the image to the article and its subject, but many of the captions seem be better at identifying the buildings in the background. Of the two pictures in the double image on the right in the Final design section, I would only keep the top File:Downtown Chicago Illinois Nov05 stc 2563.jpg and would make the caption describe how the bridge serves as a noise barrier here. I also note that the images seem to show there are lights in the interior walls of the bridge to illuminate the deck, but I am not sure the article mentions this. I planned to do the copyedit, then work on the images (moving text around within the article will mean the images will probably have to be moved too). I had also thought of cropping File:Millennium Park from Sears Tower.jpg to focus more on just the bridge. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Just to make clear, I think a new picture should be of Columbus Drive and the bridge crossing it, with the support column in the center - the current image has a tree over the support column but is otherwise not too bad. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I can get a really good, easy pic from upper Randolph St. -- T orsodo g Talk 19:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I am a slow copyeditor, so it is not a big rush. Do the changes I have made so far seem OK? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad link
Current ref 12 is a bad link - I have not used Newsbank and am not sure how to find the correct link Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bey, Lee (1999-02-18). "Building for future - Modern architect sought for park". Chicago Sun-Times. Newsbank. . Retrieved on 2008-07-24.
 * link fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Plates
Sources disagree on the number of stainless steel plates in the bridge. There is a Tribune article that says The bridge materials include 9,800 stainless steel shingle plates, 2,000 rot-resistant Brazilian hardwood boards and 115,000 stainless steel screws.[31][26] (this is also sourced to Gilfoyle's book, but I do not have that). I was going to move this to construction anyway. Construction has a different number of plates, both based on this ASM webpage which says there are 10,400 standardized panels and 4,400 custom panels: Fabricating the 10,400 trapezoidal stainless steel panels took 1,000 shop hours and was done in 17 different shops.[33] and Because a specific horizontal line had to be maintained throughout the bridge, CMF (the sheet metal contractor) made 4,400 field-fabricated custom panels.

One way to deal with this owuld be to report both numbers in the article (While the Chicago Tribune reports the bridge has 9,800 stainless steel plates, this industry website (not sure what to call it) says there are 14,800...). Another way would be to just use the 14,800 number, but add a note to the Tribune reference "Note: This article also reports the bridge contains 9,800 stainless steel plates."

I am also pretty sure the current sentence on the 10,400 plates may be incorrect - the original sentence on the website is The fabrication of 10,400 stainless steel trapezoidal panels in 17 different shop fabricated configurations involved 1,000 shop hours. I read this as 17 different kinds of panels (configurations) made in one shop, not made in 17 shops. My solution here would be to use all or most of the original sentence as a direct quote in the article.

Feedback please, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to prefer to include both contradicting figures when something like this happens.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - seems more NPOV to include both from reliable sources. Will work on it next, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Images
I uploaded this from Flickr - what do you think of it as a photo of the support column? Torsodog if you have not already taken a photo of the column, is this OK (save you a trip?) I also saw on Flickr that there are lights set in the parapet walls. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless and until Torsodog comes up with better (likely until), that will do, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've been taking so long with the pics, but I was just in Vegas for awhile. I'm back in Chi-town now though and I'll get the pics in the next couple of days! -- T orsodo g Talk 03:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much - just curious, what do you think of the new layout of images? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it a lot. It is a lot less cluttered than it was previously. Nice work! -- T orsodo g Talk 04:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, I took a picture of the bridge today from Randolph. It shows the column prominently and shows the bridge from a new angle. Unfortunately, the lighting was pretty bad today. Feel free to edit the image as needed (I cropped and played with the levels a bit myself)! I might also try to take another photo on a better day in the near future. -- T orsodo g Talk 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it looks very nice, especially the cropped version, thanks! I notice the photo shows Columbus Drive is six lanes wide here, but the article says it is eight lanes wide. IS this only down by Monroe? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe south of the bridge there are lanes on both sides that go to the underground parking garage. Some of the other photos might show this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. the new image is from a great perspective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Aesthetics
A few things I noticed in this section that might be issues in FAC: I will make my copyedits to Aesthetics next Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some have suggested that the bridge and the pavilion are mere extensions of Gehry's work in other cities. - usually better to say who this is (not just "some")
 * I have clarified that the subsequent claim is an example in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Current refs 54, 55, and 56 need year published, publisher locations, ISBNs, and probably page or pages cited.
 * I have reformated these refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Same point for Some even refer to the stainless steel plates as scales with discussion of reptilian forms.[19] (be specific who says this) I plan to add a ref to Kamin here too - current ref 7 calls it a bridge that resembles a giant silver snake, complete with a scaly skin.
 * Does that example solve the problem in your eyes?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These look much better to me, thanks so much. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done and an image experiment
I am done with the copyedit and also tried rearranging the images. I added the new images of the central post for now (in place of the old one) and cropped the view from Sears Tower image so the bridge was clearer in it. I removed a few images that did not seem that helpful to me. I think the description of which buildings are in the background should definitely be added to image file descriptions, but do not think they belong in the captions here. Revert if you don't like it and feel free to go to PR. I will be glad to help out with any requests in PR and FAC if you want. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations on (finally) passing FA scrutiny. The article looks great. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On behalf of my co-editors, Thank you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion notice on image
Just a notice that one of the images is nominated for deletion on Commons - you are welcome to comment commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BP Bridge facing NW.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

But do people like it?
Why nothing from critics? This article appears to be by, and for architects, not users. What is it like to cross this span? My impression is that the bridge is horribly inconvenient and stands out like an arrogant sore thumb. It seems to be twice as long as necessary, and stairs are eliminated in an effort to be esthetically pure. While those in wheelchairs might appreciate it, those with bad feet, like me, definitely won't. 68.111.71.197 (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be opinion. - Denimadept (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But a fawning article like this one isn't opinion? Include some criticism.68.111.71.197 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I have to say I share 68.111.71.197's opinion, and have a similar (negative) opinion of all of Gehry's architecture, which I think is self-aggrandizing, impractical, ugly, and in general, highly unfriendly to pedestrians. But I had a tough time locating articles.  Perhaps it's time for critics like you and I to write some op-eds in places where they'll get some mention.  I find plenty of criticism of Gehry's work...is this article written about a different bridge:  ?  It refers to milennium park but doesn't name the bridge...but it's critical of whatever bridge it's discussing, saying it's not practical (most pedestrians would want to cross at the curb because it goes too deep into the park).  Cazort (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps both of you missed BP Pedestrian Bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ahh silly me. Cazort (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda?
This favourable article about a bridge appears on Wikipedia's front page at a time when the corporation that it's named for—BP—is currently under fire for creating a massive environmental catastrophe. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and has a say as to which articles they'd like to see featured on Wikipedia's front page, and it therefore possible that BP's public relations department had a hand in this, as if to say, "Sorry about the little spill in the Gulf, but hey—look at the nifty bridge we bought for Chi-town!" Morganfitzp (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks suspicious. Hive001   contact  17:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks suspicious, but it's not. -- T orsodo g Talk 17:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the rationale for having this star on the front page? This is more than suspicious, it seems pretty serious. I'm going to dig into this. Martinor (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, not quite as suspicious as originally perceived. Though the person suggesting the article for the main page might have some obscure motive (forget about it), what is _really_ astonishing is how _little activity_ and collective participation there is in the process of deciding upon an article to feature the main page. At the moment only a handful of users are choosing the most visible article on wikipedia worldwide. The discussion on the BP one is 7 - seven - comments long. This might be unfortunate. Martinor (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost all Featured Articles (FAs) are eligible to appear on the Main Page once (and can appear almost always only one time ever). The star just means the article is an FA. The WP:TFAR page is to help the FA Director as he schedules which articles will be on the Main Page, and when. The important factor here was the anniversary of the bridge opening, not the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. One of the TFAR commenters mentioned this. There was no ulterior motive or conspiracy - this was promoted to FA long before the tragedy in the Gulf. Ruhrfisch  <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on BP Pedestrian 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/20121020022258/http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.+15&ActID=1815&ChapAct=625&nbsp%3BILCS&nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=49&ChapterName=VEHICLES&SectionID=59804&SeqStart=141400000&SeqEnd=146300000&ActName=Illinois+Vehicle+Code. to http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.+15&ActID=1815&ChapAct=625%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=49&ChapterName=VEHICLES&SectionID=59804&SeqStart=141400000&SeqEnd=146300000&ActName=Illinois+Vehicle+Code.
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.millenniumpark.org/artandarchitecture/bp_bridge.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513113921/http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca:80/en/co/renoho/refash/refash_025.cfm to http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/renoho/refash/refash_025.cfm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.millenniumpark.org/artandarchitecture/bp_bridge_factsheet.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on BP Pedestrian 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/20080608174705/http://www.greenroofs.org/washington/index.php?page=millenium to http://www.greenroofs.org/washington/index.php?page=millenium
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid%2Fiw.newsbank.com%3ANewsBank%3ACTRB&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=0ED5C2B4DC1C36DF&svc_dat=InfoWeb%3Aaggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid%2Fiw.newsbank.com%3ANewsBank%3ACTRB&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=0EB4865AF2F8B197&svc_dat=InfoWeb%3Aaggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid%2Fiw.newsbank.com%3ANewsBank%3ACTRB&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=0EB48698C4D2ADE1&svc_dat=InfoWeb%3Aaggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid%2Fiw.newsbank.com%3ANewsBank%3ACSTB&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=102FB05ADED6F09F&svc_dat=InfoWeb%3Aaggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.%2015&ActID=1815&ChapAct=625&nbsp%3BILCS&nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=49&ChapterName=VEHICLES&SectionID=59804&SeqStart=141400000&SeqEnd=146300000&ActName=Illinois%20Vehicle%20Code.
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/renoho/refash/refash_025.cfm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid%2Fiw.newsbank.com%3ANewsBank%3ACTRB&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=103E954260CCFD7C&svc_dat=InfoWeb%3Aaggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid%2Fiw.newsbank.com%3ANewsBank%3ACSTB&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=103F314E0D3567B3&svc_dat=InfoWeb%3Aaggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090522004456/http://som.com/content.cfm/millennium_park_bp_pedestrian_bridge to http://www.som.com/content.cfm/millennium_park_bp_pedestrian_bridge
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid%2Fiw.newsbank.com%3ANewsBank%3ACSTB&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=0FB52861AEBE29A0&svc_dat=InfoWeb%3Aaggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid%2Fiw.newsbank.com%3ANewsBank%3ACSTB&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=102DDD1FEC47B09D&svc_dat=InfoWeb%3Aaggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid%2Fiw.newsbank.com%3ANewsBank%3ACTRB&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=102BCA56A3A39038&svc_dat=InfoWeb%3Aaggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid%2Fiw.newsbank.com%3ANewsBank%3ACSTB&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=10E8A9F099120B88&svc_dat=InfoWeb%3Aaggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid%2Fiw.newsbank.com%3ANewsBank%3ACTRB&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=1077A5489D1369E3&svc_dat=InfoWeb%3Aaggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid%2Fiw.newsbank.com%3ANewsBank%3ACSTB&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=10EAA2ED7B4D80D8&svc_dat=InfoWeb%3Aaggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on BP Pedestrian 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.%2015&ActID=1815&ChapAct=625&nbsp%3BILCS&nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=49&ChapterName=VEHICLES&SectionID=59804&SeqStart=141400000&SeqEnd=146300000&ActName=Illinois%20Vehicle%20Code.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526012144/http://www.millenniumpark.org/artandarchitecture/bp_bridge.html to http://millenniumpark.org/artandarchitecture/bp_bridge.html
 * Added tag to http://pva.convio.net/site/DocServer/PN_BFA_2005_Article.pdf?docID=1921
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509235845/http://www.som.com/content.cfm/millennium_park_bp_pedestrian_bridge to http://www.asm-expertise.com/whatspossible/index.cfm?fuseaction=view_article&article_id=2473
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080503125614/http://www.millenniumpark.org/artandarchitecture/bp_bridge_factsheet.html to http://millenniumpark.org/artandarchitecture/bp_bridge_factsheet.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)