Wikipedia:Peer review/Forksville Covered Bridge/archive1

Forksville Covered Bridge

 * 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 June 2008.
 * 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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've asked for a peer review because I believe this article on a covered bridge that is on the National Register of Historic Places is nearly ready for FAC. Thanks to Dincher and Juliancolton for some very helpful comments. It is based on the model of Cogan House Covered Bridge, which is an FA. The article includes almost every bit of information I can find on the bridge itself, and any comments from fresh sets of eyes would be useful and appreciated. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Right now I am checking the links. Little Loyalsock Creek is a redirect to Loyalsock Creek. I recommend making a stub for the Little one but knowing you it'll be at least a GA before Labor Day =). Dincher (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Load bearing is a redirect to structural engineering. Don't know if this is important or not, but I don't really like redirects. Can live with or without it. Dincher (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The rest of the links check out as okay. There are some repeated wikilinks. Other editors don't link too many of these but I think they are fine. Dincher (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the text and didn't find any problems. It was a very interesting read. Dincher (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for checking these. If something is linked in the lead, I am OK with repeating the link later in the article. I will work on the duplicate links and a new Little Loyalsock article. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too, I have no problem with duplicate links. Dincher (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2008 (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.
 * Hee! I see you're using our compromise on the Svirsky site. Cool!.
 * Are you going to do ALL the covered bridges in the US or just PA?
 * 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.) 14:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments:

The delightful cousins have come and gone, and I'm back at work. This is an excellent article about an interesting bridge. I made a small number of proofreading changes, most involving no-break codes and commas, as I went. Here are a few other things that you might consider.


 * The capitalization of species often raises questions, and I've flip-flopped a couple of times on what exactly is correct. The MoS says "Official common names of birds are normally capitalized." It also says, "Common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case—for example, oak or lion," and it lists exceptions for things like Roosevelt elk, in which the "R" is big and the "e" is small. I've come around to using upper-case on the common bird names like "Hairy Woodpecker" and lower-case on things like "western redcedar" that are not birds. I believe this to be correct but retain a smidgen of doubt, hence the long-winded explanation here. In the Forksville Bridge article, you use "Eastern Hemlock", which I think should be "eastern hemlock" even though the linked article's title is "Eastern Hemlock".
 * I generally capitalize all species and leave others uncapitalized, so "Eastern Hemlock" but just "hemlock", per User:Ben MacDui's suggestion. This is what the last two FA Pennsylvania state park articles do, but since the MOS says otherwise, it is changed. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see USD$ before dollar amounts two times in the "Recreation and use" section. I don't think you have to use USD$ in a U.S.-centric article. It might be useful on the first instance to avoid confusion with other currencies like the Australian, but I wouldn't use it more than once per article.
 * Second instance is gone, will remove that too if asked to in FAC. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The link-checker returns a 301 warning for the History of Sullivan County (rootsweb) link, saying it has "moved permanently" and "changes domain". Nonetheless, this link seems to work fine when clicked in the article. I'm not sure if anything can or should be done to the link.
 * I also get this and the URL does not change, so I will leave it for now. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This sentence stopped me each time through: "According to Zacher, the first Burr arch truss covered bridges were also built in the state." Maybe the problem is too many modifiers all strung out. How about something like "According to Zacher, the first covered bridges of the Burr arch truss type were also built in the state"? Or "According to Zacher, the first covered bridges of the Burr arch truss design were also built in the state."
 * Thanks - the sentence was originally "Some of the first Burr arch truss covered bridges were also built in the state." The problem is that Zacher writes the first Burr arch covered bridges were built in Pennsylvania, but the Theodore Burr Society website (not cited) says Burr built his first bridge in New York state (although it does not say if it was a Burr arch type bridge). I changed it to your second example. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the "Construction and description" section, you might want to link "abutment" and "eave".
 * Done, thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I'd just split this long sentence into two sentences: "The restoration was supervised by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), which owns and maintains the bridge, and involved minor work on the 'steel floor beams and stringers', which had been added years before." The second sentence would be "The repair involved minor work on the..." or something like that.
 * Done, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This sentence stopped me: "An entirely new wooden deck was installed, with wheel guards to channel all traffic to the center and separate pedestrian walkways on the sides." I think the problem is that pedestrian use is a kind of "traffic". Maybe something like this would be better: "The contractor installed an entirely new wooden deck including wheel guards to channel auto traffic to the center and to protect pedestrian walkways on either side."
 * Changed to An entirely new wooden deck was installed, with wheel guards (wooden curbs) to channel vehicle traffic to the center and separate pedestrian walkways on the sides. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I see. I might make one other minor suggestion here, and that would be to use "to protect" or "to shield" instead of "separate" because "separate" could be misunderstood as an adjective rather than a verb. Finetooth (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly "wheel guards" could be linked or briefly explained. I understand the basic words, but I don't know what a wheel guard looks like or what one might be made of or exactly how it's attached or how many might be needed for a bridge like this.
 * See above - there is no link for wheel guards, so I linked curb. This photo shows one of the wheel guards - essentially a beam bolted to the bridge deck, with the vehicle roadway on one side and the pedestrian walkway on the other, thanks. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd replace "in an operation" with something else in the sentence: "In 2006 the bridge was painted red in an operation that took about three weeks." Maybe "During three weeks in 2006, the bridge was painted red."
 * Changed to your suggestion, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The concept of "bridge sufficiency rating" is clear in a general way, but it might be good to include a more exact explanation of what it means or how it is calculated, particularly since you cite the precise figure of 17.4 percent. Such a low rating might indicate a dangerous bridge, but the bridge remains in heavy use. Does the FHA give high ratings to any covered bridges, or do they all get similar low ratings? Does the FHA rating lead to a mandate, or can the state ignore it? I don't know how difficult it might be to answer these questions or whether the answers go too far into murky legal language to be useful. Nevertheless, the 17.4 percent made me ask.
 * I found this link that expalins it in general terms, but I am not sure how the exact figure for this bridge was arrived at. I also note this August 2, 2007 MSNBC article says 42.9% of Pennsylvania's 22,291 bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. I am not sure how much of this should be in the article - perhaps in a note? I think part of the reason for the low rating is that they rate all bridges on the same scale, and a 158 year old wooden bridge just does not compare well to a modern steel bridge. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the pdf you mentioned and then stumbled on another general explanation here that might help. I think a brief note might do the trick. Finetooth (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful in making an excellent article even better. Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They are very helpful - thanks very much! The peer review bots are down so I am having to do a lot of maintenance by hand and will respond to these in the next day or two. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I believe all of the issues raised here have now been addressed. I will take this to FAC in the next 24 hours or so Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)