Wikipedia:Peer review/Hillsgrove Covered Bridge/archive1

Hillsgrove 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 August 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 August 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. It is based on the models of Cogan House Covered Bridge and Forksville Covered Bridge, which are both FAs. The article includes every bit of information I can find on the bridge itself, and any comments from fresh sets of eyes would be useful and appreciated. I plan to write an article for the one red link. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments I made a minor change fix an add to added. Why do bridges have windows? I am assuming that there is some sort of engineering reason for this, but maybe it's just for looks. Other than that question being unanswered, this article looks good and is ready for FAC. I haven't looked at any MOS issues and wouldn't know where to look if I did. Dincher (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much - yours are the fastest comments I have had at PR ever! I have never seen a reason for windows in the bridges - of the seven in the three county NRHP listing only two have more than one window and they are the longest two. This bridge is 186 feet long and without windows would be fairly dark, so my guess is it is a lighting issue. I also think Lewis added the windows in 1968, but have no sources on that. As it is the windows are staggered so there are five places of illumination. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had thought that maybe the windows were there to allow wind to pass through insted of under or over and knocking the bridge down. I guess that was too much thinking. I didn't see the obvious lighting issue. Oh, the pics are quite nice. I really like sign about animals and fire, very funny. Dincher (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Federal Covered Bridge guide (Extrernal link) they describe bridges failing from uneven snow loads on the roof, so strong wind could probably do it too. Ice jams and floods seem worst - the Forksville and Sonestown bridges both had major damage from ice jams, Buttonwood was swept off its foundations by a flood, and a stone bridge in Plunketts Creek Twp (over Plunketts Creek) on the NRHP was destroyed by ice and flood in 1996. I still have to add these details to most of those articles. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Brian Boulton comments: A couple of general points, before my list of specifics. First, is this kind of bridge construction unique to the United States, and if so, is there any reason known for this? Second – and this is a puzzle to me – the article talks of this structure as a transition between stone and metal bridges. In the UK, wooden bridges were replaced with stone structures, not the other way round. It seems very odd to me that stone bridges were demolished to be replaced by wooden ones – is that in fact what happened?
 * There are a few wooden covered bridges in Europe (see Kapellbrücke in Luzerne, Switzerland) and Asia (see this one in China). I believe most wooden covered bridges in the US did not replace stone bridges, but were new constructions. There is no mention of any predecessor bridge here, and in 1850 the county was new and just growing so it make sense that this was a new bridge. The wooden bridges were cheaper than stone and could span longer reaches than most stone bridges. Steel bridges were more durable and stronger than wooden ones. I will go back to the sources and see if I can justify a clearer explanation of all this from the sources cited. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, as to detail:-
 * Lead
 * I’d give the year it was built before details of its length, as that seems more logical
 * The "unincorporated" link is to the disambiguation page, and should be to one of the four options shown there
 * Both of these are now fixed, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Something strange about the sentence: "Pennsylvania had the first covered bridge in the United States, and the most such bridges in both the 19th and 21st centuries". I can understand the first part, but am puzzled by the second, and perhaps some rewording could indicate what happened in the 20th century?
 * It is an attempt to summarize two sentences in the article. The Zacher source for the 19th century also gives a late 20th century datum that Pennsylvania had the most covered bridges in the US, so I will try to tweak this. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Pennsylvania had the first covered bridge in the United States, and the most such bridges from the 19th century to the present day. I will also see if the text in the article needs tweaked. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Repetition: is it necessary, in para 3, to state again that it is a "Burr arch truss" type, when these words have been used in the first line of the article to define the bridge?
 * Changed to The Hillsgrove bridge has a load-bearing Burr arch sandwiching multiple vertical king posts, for strength and rigidity. to avoid repetition. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "It was restored in 1963, 1968 and 2001". The first two dates are very close, so I suspect that the 1963 restoration must have been partial. Would it be better to say "Restoration work was carried out in 1963, 1968 and 2001, and the bridge is still in use..."?
 * Changed to your version, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Does "Functionally Obsolete" require caps?
 * It is a direct quotation - the caps are in the original, so I am hesitant to change them. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Some problem with grammar/punctuation in last sentence of lead. Too long/complex? Perhaps it should be split to read:"...unstable foundations and unacceptable railings. It also deemed its..."etc
 * Changed this to your version, thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Location map: this could easily confuse those with little knowledge of Pennsylvanian geography, i.e. about 99.9% of the non-American world, and an unknown but hopefully smaller percentage of the American world (including maybe some who live in Pennsylvania). It needs to be clear that the whole light-shaded area is the state of Pennsylvania (a prod from school history tells me that "Commonwealth" is the proper term), and that the area in which the location spot appears is Sullivan County.
 * Added a locator map of Pennsylvania within the United States. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Overview
 * Second para is written as though the reader should know who Daniel Ogden and John Hill were. Could they be briefly introduced?
 * Reworded to emphasize they are first settler in the township and founder and namesake of village and later township of Hillsgrove (and thus the bridge) thanks - Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I had to read this several times before I realised that Hillsgrove Township and the village of Hillsgrove are different places. Can this be clarified? Something like: "The division of Lycoming County ran through Plunketts Creek Township, so there were initially townships of this name in each of the adjoining counties. To avoid confusion..."
 * CHanged to your wording and tried to make the village vs. twonship issue clearer - thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The name "may also refer..." Does this mean "may possibly refer but we’re not sure", or "used to refer"?
 * Changed to "can also refer..." prefer used to meaning, thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * History – Background
 * Who is/was Zacher?
 * Changed to  According to Susan M. Zacher, author of The Covered Bridges of Pennsylvania: A Guide, ... thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Construction and description
 * Does the first sentence really belong in this section? I’d have thought belonged to the previous one.
 * Moved there, thanks Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Some unnecessary repetition of "covered bridge". I’d have thought you could say "All three were of Burr arch construction..." and begin the next sentence simply: "The Hillsgrove bridge..." The same tendency to give the full format "Hillsgrove Covered Bridge" at each mention occurs later down the section.
 * I am reducing these - I like to have the full name in each section but agree this is a bit excessive, thanks Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "18 years old" might be better than saying just "18"
 * CHanged, thanks 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The hand-carved model story relates to a different bridge, so need it be mentioned here?
 * Story is out (although it is in the Forksville Covered Bridge article). Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Possible simplification: "...with the latter about 5 miles (8 km) further downstream" (What about the single-digit numerics?)
 * Thanks, this is much clearer and I fixed the convert template to so it is single digit for km. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion about the road width. Is it 12 feet 2 inches, or 18 feet?
 * Two reliable sources, two widths. I did not know what else to do so I put them both in. It may be they are using different definitions - 18 feet maqy be wall to wall, while 12 feet plus may be the width of the drivable road surface. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to have a date for the notice relating to horses, mules, etc
 * The sign itself has no date and appears to be a more recent copy, the newspaper article only says "19th-century" so I added that. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What are these wheelguards that "separate the roadway from the pedestrian walkways" and also "protect the sides"? Nothing in evidence from the image.
 * They are just the wooden beams bolted to the floor to keep cars from driving too close to the sides, caption now reads Bridge interior view showing Burr arches and King posts, the wooden beams bolted to the floor on each side are the wheelguards. thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "shake shingles"? A new one for me, I’m afraid
 * Hand made wooden shingles split from logs - it now reads "over the original wooden shake shingles." Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Use and restoration
 * Perhaps too much information in 1st para about the lumber trade, not directly related to the bridge. The para could end after "...Uncle Ben’s Landing for lumber rafts."
 * I trimmed it a little, but want to keep most of it - I think most people do not realize how large these rafts were, and how busy the creek beneath the bridge was then. An acre of forest today would only produce about 5000 board feet (one of the smaller rafts). Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, is it necessary to detail the Forksville bridge repairs?
 * Since details on the Hillsgrove restoration are mostly lacking, and the same person restored both Forksville and Hillsgrove, I included some details. I cut out the steel beams, but left in the windows as they are odd and only these two bridges have them locally. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid I got lost in the third paragraph, especially the last sentence, which appears to be talking about the replacement of a "modern bridge". Clarify this refers to replacement of the Elm Creek bridge?
 * I rewrote it, trying for shorter sentences and more clarity, hopefully it is better. Thanks Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Last para information more or less repeats what’s in the lead, which suggests that the lead info. could be more briefly summarised.
 * Agreed, will pare down the lead, perhaps add a mention of the 19th century sign there Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Table: I may be missing something, but the table refers to the "Cogan House Covered Bridge" without explanation of this name. As to the table itself, I don’t really know what its function is, and without more explanatory text it's a bit confusing.
 * "Cogan House" was a copy and paste error - sorry. The table is just an attempt to show that several reliable sources do not come close to agreeing on simple data (length, width, etc.) for the bridge. I will ponder what to add to clarify this. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would help, I think, if the section heading was changed from the rather vague "Literature comparisons" to something directly functional, e.g. "Bridge dimensions", and the preamble to the table extended to read something like; "Wide variations in the dimensions of the Hillsgrove Covered Bridge have been published, particularly as regards to width, indicating that several bases of measurement have been used. The following table is a comparison of published measurements of length, width and load recorded in different sources. The article uses primarily the NBI and NRHP data, as they are national programs". I'd also make the "Source" column the first (l/hand) column in the table, and call it "Source and year". Just suggestions, but perhaps they would clarify. A reference to this table earlier in the text, where you first mention the width disparity, might also be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I like this idea and have gotten thecovered bridges books out of the library again to find what the basis of the different measurements are. The Evans measured the length and width themselves in 2001. Zacher (who both wrote a book and is listed as the NRHP form author) seems to have relied on two state-wide commonwealth-wide surveys ofcovered bridges (one for the book, perhaps one for the NRHP). Need to read up on the NBI. Will update this too, thanks for a good idea. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have attemted to do this, thanks again Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is always interesting to read about something completely outside one's own experiences, and I am glad to have has the opportunity to have reviewed this article. I hope that my comments are useful. Brianboulton (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for a very careful reading and detailed review. I will address your points soon, but wanted to say thanks now, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I have now addressed all the points raised in both reviewers' comments - thanks very much! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think all concerns have been met, and I see no reason why this shouldn't join the Forksville and Cogan House articles in the Hall of Fame. I note there are 221 covered bridges in Pennsylvania, so only 218 to go for the Featured Topic! Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again - there are seven bridges in three counties which were submitted together to the NRHP as "Covered Bridges of Bradford, Sullivan and Lycoming Counties". I have enough data to get at least five of those articles to FA and the other two to at least GA, so the thought of a FT of those seven had crossed my mind. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)