Wikipedia:Peer review/Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge/archive1

===Niagara Falls Suspension 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 September 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 September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I had expanded this article (from 3,380 to 65,303 bytes) would like to get feedback on this article's suitability for Featured Article's status before its nomination. I believe it still needs a scrutiny of prose, use of engineering terms, and other little bits and pieces.

Thanks, Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge/archive1.

Most of these are just ideas, not demands. But on the whole it looks good and could be FA by the end of the year.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Watch capitalization. Suspension Bridge vs. bridge, and Falls.
 * This image, a Featured Picture, shows better detail of the bridge but not the whole thing as does the current one in the infobox. Which to use? Up to you.
 * Comprehensive, if long, lead. No references there.
 * Bios need main; can those article benefit from the info in the bridge article?
 * Is there info there about the bridge itself that should be placed elsewhere? That section should be background. Speaking of which, perhaps provide us a little info on the significance on Niagra Falls, U.S.-Canada relations, public perception of suspension bridges at the time, and the need for a bridge. Some of that may be in there already, but perhaps group it all together? Somehow I missed a lot of tje first section...
 * And while you mention that the bridge was reassembled to allow a new one in its place, what is the site like today? Are there any plaques in commemoration? Can we get pictures of them?
 * I caught (and fixed) a few present tense verbs. Be on the lookout for more.
 * Are the dates and units formatted correctly? When you say dollars, American or Canadian? And what year? What does that equal today?
 * Under "Legacy" the transition from tightrope walkers to smuggled slaves seems a little forced. New paragraph, we know it's a new topic.


 * Regarding capitalization, the unfortunate circumstances here has the common name of the bridge as simply the Suspension Bridge. Furthermore there is the falls (Niagara Falls), which should be capital "F" in the phrase but small "f" when used alone (per the books)?
 * As for the picture, although greater in details, the advertisement only shows a portion of the bridge. Furthermore, it is the evidence of a statement in the Legacy section; hence, it is more appropriate to be sited there next to the statement, providing context.  The current one in the infobox shows everything mentioned about the bridge as a whole.
 * Those articles definitely could benefit from this article and have been linked as main.
 * Regarding the bridge developments in the builders' sections, the bridge development is closely linked with them (even personalities). Having them there provides a smooth reading experience.
 * As mentioned at the end, the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge stands in place of the bridge today. There is nothing that can indicate traces of the old bridge that I can tell.
 * Dates are formatted in the American manner and the language should be in American English (along with using Imperial units as the primary measures). All currency is in US$ as according to the Bank of Canada, all references to and use of the dollar in Canada before 1857 refers to the United States dollar.
 * Thanks of the comments, I will try my best to address them. Jappalang (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I copy-edited the lead and the first 2 paragraphs of Conception and building. I left inline comments, so be sure to address those. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tried to address as much as I can with your comments, but am uncertain how to address the long-winded issue. Anyone has an idea to cut the fat from those sentences?  Jappalang (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've finished copy-editing (sorry I took so long); be sure to address the inline comments that I left. I must say that this is one of the best-written articles I've seen on Wikipedia. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to find problems. I just want to say that this is a most welcome addition to the project and I applaud your efforts. Thank you. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 03:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, don't feel like I have demands (you're thinking of GAN or FAC); I just read through it as a casual reader would and I had some comments. If some of them are not actionable or stem from my ignorance, that's fine. (Although perhaps it's worth noting, for instance, that there are no commemorative plaques or that the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge is still in service or what year the dollars are for.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:52, 21 September 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. The sourcing looks good.
 * 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.) 12:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * I suspect that it will get through FAC relatively easily, as there is a lot of good well-referenced information in it. You've obviously put a lot of hard work into expanding it. I read it a least three times, as I didn't pick up all the information the first couple of times. Now the constructive criticisms:


 * your references are mixed, e.g. most are like "Irwin, 33", but Refs 60 and 61 are Harvard referencing, e.g. "Roebling (1855), 3", lets have them all in Harvard (even "Smith (2000), Pp 1-10").
 * I think that your WP:lede has too much detail and not a wide enough scope. Being blunt for the moment, the kite flying bit is interesting but its almost a copy and paste from the main body and the same applies to some other paragraphs in the lede. Lets hack some words out of the lede; but some more needs to go it. Its not all that clear that it was built in wood & stone, rebuilt in iron & steel and then replaced by another bridge; and there is no mention that it carried three separate gauges of line. Maybe if there is room the names of the railways could be added? Its also worth adding that the bridge was replaced because the trains, e.g. moving loads, got heavier; not because it was corroding away.
 * Looking at comments made above, I'll happily write you a new lede in British English, but you'll need to convert it to American English. (Put note on my talk page if that what you want.)
 * I would be tempted to trim about some of the background about Ellet & Reobling as you already have {main|} links. I don't think that Reobling's marriage & family adds usual information about the bridge. I was going to say the same about Ellet's looks and oratory skills, but I've changed my mine - it does add to the article. Pyrotec (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some comments on the article. It is quite detailed and looks pretty good, so these will be mostly nitpicks. I agree with almost all of the comments above. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the lead needs to do a better job of summarizing the article. I would put the dates of the bridge's existence in the first paragraph, and perhaps its length. I agree that the current lead seems to go into a bit too much detail on some topics (kite trick, daredevils)
 * I think the article needs a copyedit - ask for help at WP:PRV. I read for comprehension, not copyedits, but noted these:
 * missing word? ... the time leading up to the American Civil War, the Suspension Bridge was [on] one of the four main routes of the Underground Railroad, ... as currently written, it makes it sound like the bridge was the entire route, not a part of one route.
 * Watch language that does not seem encyclopedic in tone - for example In the middle of the 19th century, the hinterlands of the North American East Coast were opened up at a rapid pace; colonists moved further inland, pushing back the wilderness and establishing settlements that grew into towns and cities. As they grew, these centers of civilization demanded for more and better trade routes to other settlements.[1]  rapid pace? demanded?
 * Or this could be tweaked (and watch tense) Through the bridge's lower deck entrance, which is flanked by a toll booth, the deep trusses that help[ed] reinforce the bridge's rigidity are visible. how about something like View of the bridge's lower deck entrance, with a toll booth at left: deep trusses that helped reinforce the bridge's rigidity are visible.
 * Or word choice  Similarly, Clifton on the Canadian end of the bridge was integrated by [into] the town of Niagara Falls, Ontario.[72]
 * Watch tense throughout They were the enslaved African-Americans who sought freedom by escaping to a country that declared the liberation of any slave who enters it.[84] shouldn't it be "entered it"?
 * Or this nti-slave activist Harriet Tubman guided the fugitives through the night and bribed custom officials to turn a blind eye.[87] She was "anti-slavery" (or perhaps better decribed as a conductor on the Underground Railroad), not "anti-slave". "through the night" seems odd, is "at night" meant - I doubt it took all night to cross the bridge.
 * Other than a copyedit, it seems well sourced, well illustrated, nicely organized, and full of intersting details (would that I could find half as much information on the covered bridges I write about).
 * This is copied from my Talk Page:-
 * Hi Jappalang, I spent about an hour looking through the article earlier this evening. I made a few edits, but on the whole I think it is well-written and engaging. I was impressed with the comprehensiveness, citations and interesting history. The article is close to FA I think. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Thank you all for your comments and suggestions (and a big thank you to those who have also checked the article's language). I have implemented some of them and am pondering over others. Please take a look at the revised article and check if further improvements can be made. Jappalang (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)