Wikipedia:Peer review/BP Pedestrian Bridge/archive2

BP Pedestrian Bridge

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.
 * I fixed the one point the SAPR found. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the one point the SAPR found. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because and I have tried to get this topic promoted to FA. Now has done a copyedit and we think it may be ready. We were looking for what are hopefully some final pointers.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments A generally well-written article which follows progress from the requirement, the design brief and the completion of the bridge.
 * The 'Construction' section may benefit further from referencing on the technical details such as the length, height and span etc., as a lay reader from another country has to take your word regarding these measurements!
 * It seems to me that everything is sourced. There are a couple of paragraphs where the entire paragraph is cited by one all-encompassing reference.  However, these references cover all claims in the respective paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, ok. It is personal preference, and I am trying to prevent this article from being shot to pieces by over-zealous reviewers, but the proof is in the proverbial pudding. I f it were one of my articles on steam locomotives, I'd reference it left, right and centre to hammer home the fact that what I say is fact, and not fiction, which is why having one reference for a whole paragraph may be too little. But I'll leave it at that. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope this provides a few pointers for improving the article even further. Well done to all editors on the work achieved so far! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a slight problem with the 'Aesthetics' section, as "The bridge is noted for its sculptural characteristics. Kamin describes the bridge as a delightful pleasure that was designed to emphasize its artistic elements while deemphasizing its concrete and steel support system." Possibly lengthen the first sentence by removing the '.' and adding 'and' so that it reads "The bridge is noted for its sculptural characteristics and Kamin describes the bridge as a delightful pleasure that was designed to emphasize its artistic elements while deemphasizing its concrete and steel support system." It means that the entire sentence falls under the reference. There are a few over-short sentences that could be expanded in this way in this section.
 * Thanks - I believe I have fixed these, but will let Tony and Torsodog deal with the references issues as they are more familiar with the sources. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, the actual referencing within the article looks good.
 * The 'References' section needs expanding from the Gilfoyle book. There are at least three others (Jencks, Waters, Feuerstein) that could be added in this section, as anything found on Google Books has previously been published in 'hard' copy.
 * done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Starting to look good, other than the little issue I've raised above, I'm happy that this article will go pretty far if the same degree of attention to detail is continued. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments Hello again! I was the editor who reviewed this article way back when it was nominated for GA. Nice to see you again. I see this article has vastly improved since I saw it last, but two failed FA noms will do that to an article. Sorry to hear that your efforts at recognition have gone un-noticed. Here are my issues...
 * Infobox PSF? Pounds per square foot? Perhaps some explanation or wikilink would be appropriate.
 * Pounds per square foot does not have a link. See the PSF dab page.  We could link PSF to Pressure, but that is about it.  What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the MOS says to spell out the first use of units and provide the metric equivalent if English, so I did both (linked pounds-force and square foot). There is an article on Pounds per square inch, perhaps a section could be added to that? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What about changing the infobox to something like "100 PSF or .6944 psi".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well MoS says In the main text, give the main units as words and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses. This is not in the main text anywhere and I just realized it needs a ref. I do not think most people will know PSF is "pounds per square foot". I am also not sure people need both PSF and psi (my guess is most readers will not have a good feel for either unit. Actually thinking about it, 100 PSF seems kind of low, even for a pedestrian bridge. A person's footprint is probably close to a square foot, but most people weigh a lot more than 100 pounds. So we need a ref and I think PSF and Pascals work. I checked Wiktionary but it does not have PSF either. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After discussion on Tony and my talk pages and a commnet on the WikiProject Bridges talk page, plus not being able to find a ref for it, the load section of the Infobox has been commented out. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent spelling "Band shell" and "bandshell" are both used? I'm not sure which is appropriate but consistency would be nice, perhaps a wikilink upon first mention would help.
 * Since the refs all use spaces, I assume that is correct and have made the copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Final plan There is mention of the clearance of over 14', to allow for future layers of pavement. Perhaps some mention of the fact that most trucks are 13' 6" in height (Illinois truck height limit is 13' 6" pg. 11, therefore trucks over this height need a special permit, and obviously are limited in the roadways on which they may travel) might provide some context for the choice of a 14' 6" height.
 * I have found a WP:RS for the Illinois Vehicle Code and have added it to the article. However, I am unsure how the Vehicle Code was actually considered in the Bridge design because I don't think we have a source linking the Vehicle code to the planning.  What do you think of the current text?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it a bit and moved some of the detail into the ref as a note. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aesthetics While not mandatory, the hyphenation of prefixes that end with the same letter as the word are usually hyphenated, "deemphasizing" just doesn't look right.
 * Thanks, I added a hyphen Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if this was an example of a larger problem that prevails throughout the article or an isolated instance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not see any other examples, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aesthetics The parenthetical statement in this sentence "Gehry has a long history (going back to the 1960s and first appearing in his architectural designs in the 1980s) of artistic use of scaled animals such as fish and snakes." should probably be moved to the end of the sentence to provide better context.
 * I moved and slightly altered the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aesthetics "multidimensional geometric complexity of its curvatures" is this a direct quote?
 * The quote is "The bridge has a double curve as it crosses Columbus, both in its pathway and in its profile, and the complexity of its geometry testifies to how computers have given Gehry unparalleled formal freedom."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the sentence to incorporate (quote) two phrases from Kamin's review sentence - is this better? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Much, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats all I can find for now. Also, if anyone would please jump over to my PR which has gone pretty much un-noticed, and provide some feedback, it would be appreciated. It is listed as the Dinosaur Diamond Scenic Byway, two sections down. Thanks. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  02:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it has since gotten a nice review, but will take a look at the article and see if I can think of anything else to add, thanks again, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have dealt with Finetooth before, and his name suits him, he is thorough. I see you have fixed the issues, and everything looks much better. Good luck with your next FA nom! -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  18:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/BuildingDetail/641.php
 * Thanks! I agree this looks dodgy. I checked and this is current ref 5 and is not needed - it is used twice and both places it is backed up by another ref that is reliable. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I took this ref out (being BOLD) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0014834
 * This is current ref 34, which is used six times. Current use "a" is backed by two other refs, which cover the cost, but not all the construction details. Current uses "b" through "f" are all in the crdits section. Ref 61 can replace use "c" (Skidmore Owings and Merrill). This source can replace use "d" (Permasteelisa) and part of the construction details in use "a". Have not found refs for the others yet. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I took this out in two places (Skidmore... and Permasteelisa) - it is still used in four places. The first two are backed up by other refs / information in the article. The Structurae page cites two articles and the last two places it is used (for steel subcontrators) is pretty non-controversial, so I think it is OK to leave in. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=863
 * This cites Atlas Steels Australia and here is their data sheet, which is the same information. Is this (from the manufacturer) more relaible? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I was bold and swapped out the ref from Azom for the Atlas Steel ref. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 12:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is very helpful - I will check the other two refs more carefully - the structurae ref is the most used of the three and I do not have time to look at each use now. azom is used only once and the web page cites a source, but this also needs to be more closely examined. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)