Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Forksville Covered Bridge

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:19, 20 July 2008 [1].

Forksville Covered Bridge[edit]

Nominator(s): Ruhrfisch

Forksville Covered Bridge has had two very helpful reviews: for Good Article (thanks to Juliancolton) and a peer review (thanks to Dincher, Ealdgyth, and Finetooth), which found no major problems and whose suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. I believe this article, which follows the FA model of Cogan House Covered Bridge, meets all of the Featured Article criteria. This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. This is a quite interesting bridge and I hope the article does it justice. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support another amazing article about a tiny detail of Pennsylvania. Dincher (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for your support, peer review, and kind words, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments As the GA reviewer, I think this is certainly close to FA. I just have a few quick comments. First, in the "Literature comparison" section, the image should be right-aligned under section headers, per MoS. Also, I think the {{reflist}} should be two columns. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for the catches. I have moved the image right and made the reflist two columns (I use IE so I can not tell the difference - it always displays as one column for me - hopefully this is OK now). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, it looks fine now (in Firefox). —Giggy 09:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks great. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for your support, GA review and kind words, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • "The Forksville Covered Bridge is a 152.9-foot (46.6 m) long Burr arch truss covered bridge" - I had to click the wlinks and get my brain into gear to work out exactly what the last five words were saying to me. Not sure if it's just me or if it could be reworded better.
    • The wording is the same (with different names) as the FA model's first sentence, which is The Cogan House Covered Bridge is a 94.2-foot (28.7 m) long Burr arch truss covered bridge over Larrys Creek in Cogan House Township, Lycoming County in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. I agree it is a bit much and could change the sentence here to "The Forksville Covered Bridge is a 152.9-foot (46.6 m) long covered bridge of the Burr arch truss type over Loyalsock Creek in the borough of Forksville, Sullivan County, in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania." Would that be better? If so, I will change it in both articles. If not, I am open to suggestions. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it serves as the logo of a Pennsylvania insurance company." - why not say which one?
    • I changed it to just the name of the company in the lead. My original thought for not including it was that it is not a well known company. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the infobox and the see also section contain Commons links. Redundancy is OK, I guess... *shrug*

Outside the lead the prose is really great. Cheers. —Giggy 09:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 11:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, an excellent article, I could find nothing to complain about at all. Congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good (I double checked them again), links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It's pretty well written. A few things I noticed:
    • "The Forksville bridge was built by Sadler Rogers, who was only 18 years old at the time and supervised construction using a hand-carved model of the structure." Maybe better organised this way? "The Forksville bridge was built by the 18-year-old Sadler Rogers, who supervised construction using a hand-carved model of the structure." (You hardly need the "only" emphasis, since 18 speaks for itself.)
      • Thanks, changed to "The Forksville bridge was built by the 18-year-old Sadler Rogers, who supervised construction using his hand-carved model of the structure." as I like that he carved the model himself first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "[c]lassic gable roof"—are the square brackets to lower the case of the C? If so, please just use "c" without them: MOS says to, with good reason. Same with [b]asically? Plus others.
      • Yes to both. I am of the Awadewit school when it comes to showing that a quotation has been altered, but will follow the MOS. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "one of three covered bridges remaining in"—is there a better position for "remaining"?
      • I'll go with "one of three remaining covered bridges in", thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my [is].
      • Thanks, but the original quotation is Set over the rocky Loyalsock Creek, the Forksville Bridge has one of the most attractive settings in the state. So I reverted it to ... and according to Susan M. Zacher's The Covered Bridges of Pennsylvania: A Guide, its location "over the rocky Loyalsock Creek" is "one of the most attractive settings in the state."[6] Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and gave Forks Township its name when it was incorporated in 1833"—what is "it"? If the town, write "when the town was"
      • Sorry, did not realize this was confusing. In Pennsylvania Townships are incorporated municipalities, and the it refers to the township. Changed now, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, the burning question as to why you'd bother covering a bridge is answered down in History background. I don't mind either way, but it might be engaging to shove that bit into the lead.
      • I am sorry but I am not sure which bit you mean should be in the lead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Between roughly 1870 and 1890"—awkward; "about" would be better, or invert the first two words.
    • These triple items are always cumbersome with the conversion: "a 21.88-foot (6.67 m) long chain". Consider instead "a chain 21.88 feet (6.67 m) long".
    • "fairly recent, and presumed most accurate." Ouch. MOS avoids vague chronological items (fairly recent). Who's presuming?
      • The problem is there are four reliable sources that give four different lengths and three different widths for the bridge. I cut it to just read "The article uses primarily the NBI and NRHP data, as they are national programs." Hopefully this is better, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 17: Huge tract of blue piped text. Can't it be black from "History ..."? TONY (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope. The cite book template links the whole title and they were considerably more prolix back in 1892. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your support, edits and comments. I will address them all eventually, but am a bit pressed for time now, so I have only replied to one comment above. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe I have addressed all of the issues that could be changed with the exception of adding the bit to the lead (as I do not know which bit you mean). Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The prose is okay but not great, but the article is quite interesting. One little nitpick: "During three weeks in 2006, the bridge was painted red." - makes it sound as if after 3 weeks they painted it back. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your support, edits and comment. The sentence in question used to be "In 2006 the bridge was painted red, in an operation that took about three weeks." before being changed in peer review. I changed it to "In 2006 the bridge was painted red, which took about three weeks." - is that better?
    • I do not think one of your edits improved the article. You changed "PennDOT decided to renovate the 120 year old bridge in 1970, rather than tear it down and replace it, because of its historic nature and appeal to tourists." to this instead "The bridge was renovated rather than torn down because of its historic nature and appeal to tourists." Before the sentence told us who made the decision and when, now that information is lost. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like the revised sentence on the painting. As for the changes I had made, the previous paragraph is specifically speaking of the renovation in 1970; I thought it redundant to include that information again. Karanacs (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, glad you like the paint change. My point with repeating the date was to emphasize how attitudes changed in the last half of the 20th Century - two of the five bridges left in the county in 1954 were razed by 1970, and there was serious consideration of tearing this bridge down then too. By 1980 it was on the NRHP and now cannot be towrn down by state law. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not wedded to any of the changes I made to the article. If you feel strongly about any of them, please revert. My support is not contingent on it all staying the same. Karanacs (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I will think about this for a few days and then decide - I need to check the 1970 revision source again and make sure it says only three covered bridges were left in the county then, and also see if the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission ban on tearing down such bridges is truly a law. If I have good refs, I might add something more like what I wrote above about attitudes changing. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As noted above by User:Ruhrfisch, I did a peer review of the article, and I made a few minor proofing changes. The article is excellent, and it continues to get better. Finetooth (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for your support, peer review, edits, and kind words, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may be just be, but I'm not used to seeing decimal fractions of feet in articles. "152.9 feet", for example. If the bridge was built that way, fine, but I suspect that it's "152 ft 11 in". I admit that the decimal probably works better and should be understandable enough, but it struck me as being a little odd. Is there any WP:MOS guidance on this? JRP (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for a great question. Since it was built in 1850, I am sure the original measurements were in feet and inches. I used the {{convert}} template which is why I used decimal feet, plus I am used to working with the metric system and am used to decimal measurements that way. As for the sources for the length, only one actually uses inches (Evans). The NBI is only given in meters, so I converted it to decimal feet. The NRHP form has it as both 147 and 146 feet (no inches) and Zacher is also only feet (no inches). I am amazed at what a huge difference there is between the four sources. I looked at Wikipedia:MOS#Units_of_measurement and did not see anything applicable here. Perhaps SandyGeorgia or Epbr123 know the answer? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. I asked User:Epbr123 if s/he knew of any MOS guidance on this. I asume Sandy reads this from time to time and will weigh in if she knows, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's really a MoS issue as much as it is that in the US, measurements are expressed in feet and inches, not as decimals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's dodging the issue really, but couldn't the figure be rounded? it would only introduce a 0.07% error. Nev1 (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy, and Epbr123 agrees too. I prefer not to round, but thanks for the suggestion Nev1. I will change the feet measurements to feet and inches next. I need to read up on {{convert}} and see if it can handle these or if I will switch to non-templates. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have gone back to the original sources and entered feet and inches. I literally can not recall ever putting feet and inches into an article before, so I probably omitted dashes or put too many non-breaking spaces, or something wrong, so if someone could please double check I would appreciate this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but the unit links in the {{Geobox}} for bridges (not an Infobox) are automatically generated and cannot be turned off that I can tell. I will ask on the Geobox talk page and check the rest of the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And some more from me:
  • I've also never heard of board feet. Perhaps simplify that to just square feet?
  • Thanks, but board feet is a unit of volume used for lumber, and square feet is a unit of area, so your request is impossible. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget to remove the decimal feet in the infobox to match.
  • Thanks and good catch. However, when I tried to do that, the {{Geobox}} for bridges does not seem to work for an input of feet and inches. I will also ask if this can be fixed / changed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you separate out content footnotes like #24 from your references? Maybe create a separate "Notes" section to put them in. (You may have to do this by hand, but I think there is a way to have grouped notes with the reference tags, but I don't know it off hand.)
  • Sometimes you use Template:convert and sometimes you don't. I'm not sure if that's an issue, but I usually aim for consistency. (I try and use convert everywhere I can since they do a better job with getting the right number of decimal places than I do, but I know there are some that dislike templates as a rule.)
  • I use it where it works - it does not work for obscure units like board feet, nor does it work for inputs in feet and inches (so I had to remove the convert templates where I had to switch from decimal feet to feet and inches per your earlier request). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "height of 8.0 feet"
  • the complete phrase is above a sign with the posted clearance height of 8.0 feet (2.4 m), - this is grammatically correct. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look some more in the morning. JRP (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found that convert will accomodate feet and inches as inputs, so these are updated now and the dashes are in place too. I have to stop for the night. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Tony has kindly edited the lead. I want to change things around some based on his ideas (for example, I do not think anything in the article should be in the lead only as it is a summary of the rest of the article). Unfortunately, I am quite busy right now and will not be able to make many edits for the next several hours. If any one plans to comment on the article, please be aware it will be changing within the next 12 hours. Sorry for the delay, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had some time and tweaked the lead. There is no reason given for the US DOT FHA using this as a model gable roof. The standard spelling is just Burr arch truss bridge (no dashes). I need to reread it all, but this is better. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Forksville_Covered_Bridge&oldid=1089085031"