Talk:Chesapeake Bay Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChesapeake Bay Bridge has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 18, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 8, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 27, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that nervous drivers can purchase a shuttle ride to get across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge?
Current status: Good article

POV?[edit]

Some of the text in the future crossing section seems to be promoting the northern crossing as the best option, indeed the article does mention that that crossing is considered the "most sensible", but that doesn't really belong either. The most interesting thing I noticed is that someone completely removed any mention of cons for that crossing, it only lists pros now. I do believe that the final report from the task force will be out next month, and that will be the best time to fix this up. Until then someone needs to balance out the POV of that section at least a little.-Jeff (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well i would really have to look over the book to see what is in it, but yes, it seems to be a lot of op-ed work in it, then just delivering of information, epically when you see comments like "thus not a real solution for the state of Maryland", plus as much as it is sourced from the one source, their plenty of information that is not sourced, especially abut the infrastructure in Baltimore and northern Maryland, which is very incorrect. Anyway personally i think the section ought be rewritten. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Points above are well taken, but I would like to point out that even suggesting the Ferry option as a legitamate alternative is only seriously considered by those who don't want any bridge what-so-ever, and even the committees notes state that a Ferry would in no way be considered a crossing alternative. It is most often used by the "No Growth & Leave us alone" types as a distracting issue to mis-lead people into believing: ferry impact=bridge impact. Also, I have noticed that people are not citing their sources i.e. "concerns that historic towns in the county such as Chestertown, would become suburbs of Baltimore.". While that statement may correctly demonstrate the feelings of people in Kent County I believe a source should be cited, or else it just may be the writer's POV and/or wishful thinking. I think in the long run their should be a separate page devoted to discussing the contorversy of a new bay bridge, and it be agreed to just let the facts stand for themsleves.-Oyarsu
I think that conclusion is common sense...Kent County is just a few miles across the Bay from Baltimore...if a road connected them, they would clearly be suburbs. It sounds like you are biased against "no-growthers" and/or those that want to protect their rural way of life. If you want your bridge, put it in the place that would have the most positive impact - between Southern Maryland and Somerset County. It diverts the DC traffic straight across the Bay to Ocean City and existing roads would only need to be expanded and have the right-of-way available to do so: Route 4,5, 413, and so forth could easily be widened. Those areas are among the poorest in the state and could use the development. On an unrelated note, perhaps it could be mentioned that a company is now offering flights from AA County to Ocean City, another travel alternative. WillC 10:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not suggest that the ferry option would be a good alternative, it simply lists some facts associated with it. Also, it is fairly common knowledge that Kent County residents don't want to see their county become "Kent Burnie". I don't live in Kent County but I have seen several newspapers and online sources that state that residents are afraid of this scenario, because they claim that it will destroy their rural way of life, and that most residents will spend their money in Baltimore instead of at local shops. So I figured this could be considered common knowledge and didn't bother finding a specific source. As for splitting it, I was considering this myself (to something like 2000s Chesapeake Bay crossing study), but I'd rather wait for the full report to be out before we split it. Also, we need to remember to maintain a balanced POV by listing both pros and cons for each "zone".-Jeff (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section has now been split to 2005 Chesapeake Bay crossing study (talk page).-Jeff (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improving[edit]

Given this article's status as a B-class article I'd like to see if we can improve it further. If we can get enough people on this task hopefully it can reach GA or even FA status. I added a to do list, so if you see anything on there that can be done do it, and if you can think of anything else that can be added/improved add it to the list or do it yourself.-Jeff (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary title[edit]

I believe the nicknames for the Bay Bridge should all redirect to William Preston Lane, Jr. Memorial Bridge, since it is the official name. --Vees 05:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NC (CN), we should "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". In short Wikipedia's convention is to use the common names for topics over the official names. If the official name is what most people call something then we use that, however in this case very few people actually use the official name. Also, although most people call it the "Bay Bridge" that term can refer to a number of bridges, so we go with the simmilar-yet-unambiguous "Chesapeake Bay Bridge". Hope that helps.-Jeff (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Vees

Bridge Fare[edit]

if you buy a book of "everyday" passes in advance, they are cheaper than the full price fare. It is 12 for 25 dollars. WillC 12:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll add that, along with the approximate price per pass ($2.08)-Jeff (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It looks like the Bay Bridge now has an official logo, I noticed it while looking at baybridge.com. The front page there includes the logo for the 2007 Bay Bridge walk, and it also includes a link to a PDF file about private driveovers. Although the PDF file is on a topic unrelated to the bridge walk, it includes a very similar logo. I just thought I'd bring this to this article's editors' attention. I also think we should hold off on including the logo in this article for now, since it seems the logo has gone through a few different iterations. I'm guessing a more final version will be included on the redesigned site when it launches later this spring.-Jeff (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 19, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: grammatical errors here and there
2. Factually accurate?: not many refs in the article; history needs a lot more
3. Broad in coverage?: some more can be added
4. Neutral point of view?: yes
5. Article stability? yes
6. Images?: some need to be rearranged

Some of the external links fail WP:EL, refs are formatted inconsistently, and there are some MOS:NUM errors.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. O2 (息 • 吹) 21:49, 19 October 2007 (GMT)

Thanks for your input. Just a few questions I still have about your assessment:
1. Such as? Any specific examples?
2. OK, will fix
3. Can you think of anything specific that can be added?
6. How? My take: WP:IMAGE suggests using images near relevant text, and this article only has two such images (the historic photo and the aerial shot of the development in Ocean City). Certainly there's room for improvement there. The distant shot could be removed since the panorama does a better job of showing the bridge from that perspective, and the article could probably use images of walkers on the bridge (for the Bay Bridge Walk and Run section), and of the lane signals (for Traffic control). Sound good? Any further suggestions?
Other points:
  • External links - I've cleaned them up. The Baydreaming page misspelled Grasonville, so it doesn't exactly come off as a reliable source, I also removed links that were easily reachable from other linked pages to shrink the list down. The remaining pages all seem to discuss the bridge itself, its history, etc, rather than simply listing simple facts that can/could be found in this article. Let me know if there's anything I missed.
  • Inconsistent formatting of refs - Before I fix this, I'd like to know: is there a preferred style? I always use [http://www.example.com] because it's easier to type. WP:CITE only says that whatever style was in use before should be used, however an editor recently converted all the refs at the time from the numbered-link style to the footnote style. Maybe I'm missing something.
  • MOS:NUM compliance - I implemented the recommendations for units in the infobox, and full dates. Anything else?
-Jeff (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use {{wide image}} for panoramas. Every other image suggestion you said are fine for this article, as it adds to the content already present. Citations have to be detailed; credits, links, and such have to be prominently displayed in the references section (WP:CITE#HOW). Even more, the first source listed is a fact sheet; what fact sheet do you mean? I should be able to directly click on the link to the source, have an ISBN number (book), or tell me the exact newspaper article title and the newspaper to conform with WP:V. I don't care if it's in external links or not; I should be able to easily access the source from the references section. As with grammar issues, various sentences in the history section need copyediting, and speaking of that same section, it crucially needs more sources. Keep up the good work though, O2 (息 • 吹) 23:02, 25 October 2007 (GMT)

Additional info[edit]

To help meet the "broad in coverage" GA standard, I'm using this section to contain some important facts related to the bridge that belong in the article, but don't have citations and/or don't currently fit into the article. Feel free to add some more.-Jeff (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ferries were taken over by the SRC because the bridge (to be built by the SRC) would have otherwise put the Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Company out of business.
  • Spiro Agnew favored the two-span option of the '67 study. Those who opposed it referred to it pejoratively as "Agnew's Double Cross".
  • The Bay Bridge appears on Maryland's Greetings From America postage stamp.[1]

MdTA vs MTA[edit]

Since I made two typos in my edit summary, I should clarify here. The bridge is operated by the Maryland Transportation Authority, which is abbreviated MdTA. MTA is the abbreviation for the unrelated Maryland Transit Administration.-Jeff (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't is be MDTA, not MdTA? --TravisBernard (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions[edit]

4.914 miles (25,950 ft; 7,908 m), 4.914 miles (25,950 ft; 7.908 km) or 4.314 miles (22,780 ft; 6,943 m), 4.314 miles (22,780 ft; 6.943 km). So what is it? Peter Horn User talk 22:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22,780 feet (4.314 mi; 6.943 km) 22,780 feet (6,943 m) Peter Horn User talk 22:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22,790 feet (4.316 mi; 6.946 km) 22,790 feet (6,946 m). I found the 3 meter discrepency. Peter Horn User talk 22:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Two main spans over the bay's two shipping channels: 3,200-foot (975 m) suspension span over the western channel with a maximum clearance of 186 feet (56.7 m); A through-truss cantilever span over the eastern channel with a maximum clearance of 58 feet (17.7 m)". For each span clearance beneath is listed. Your height in a vehicle will be so much higher. I have drive this a few time. My perception - especially when driving east, I would have expected a much higher clearance for east through-truss cantilever span span (but of course still lower than other span). When it comes to vehicle height - or deck height - how low is the lowest between the two spans? Wfoj3 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incident to add[edit]

The May 10, 2007 incident was a 7 car crash that killed 3 people on the bridge. I'd say thats worth putting on here right? --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, i wouldn't. it opens the door to including literally tens of thousands of equally significant auto accidents over the course of history. a case could probably be made for who knows how many just on this bridge.Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's already mentioned in the "Notable Incidents" section.-Jeff (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bridge crashes happen all the time, so I think an individual event would really have to mean something to warrant its inclusion, as Wikipedia's not meant to be a collection of news stories; they have to be notable. I believe an individual crash is only worth mentioning if the incident led to something happening to the evolution of the bridge. By that, I mean: does this incident lead to a change in safety features on the bridge, cause the authority to replace the bridge, or impose major restrictions on the bridge? Etc., things like that. —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 13:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Bridge rating[edit]

Rated it High-importance as the criteria for High include "bridges that cross a major waterway that carries a major (rail)road". The Chesapeake Bay itself is pretty well-known, and US 50 is a pretty important highway in the state, so... Yeah. *nod* —Onore Baka Sama(speak | stalk) 13:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

editor's injection of opinion into MdTA source[edit]

The given source doesn't support the comment about "ostensibly". Perhaps checking a dictionary and then rephrasing the remark (or adding a source) is the way to proceed. TEDickey (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chesapeake Bay Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 02:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lede[edit]

  • The caption can be shorter; I suggest removing (Gov. William Preston Lane Memorial Bridge).
  • Please add alt text for the image (and all other images).
  • Under "Carries", remove everything after US 301. There's no need for that level of detail in the infobox.
  • Two of the other names do not appear in the text; they should either be removed or cited.
  • Total length does not agree with the text.
  • No need to specify how long ago the bridge opened; that's not relevant.
  • No need to specify different tolls in the infobox; $4.00 (eastbound only) should be fine.
  • Remove the superfluous locator map - it's been replaced by the integrated mapframe.
  • For an article of this length, a three-paragraph lede should be good. I would recommend adding about one sentence each about the previous ferries, the run, the impact of the bridge, and the future.
  • I believe all of these are done, though the third lede paragraph looks like it might be a bit choppy to me. AviationFreak💬 14:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals and ferries[edit]

  • The first two sentences are contradictory: was the first proposal in the 1880s or 1907?
  • Combine the first two paragraphs.
  • A more reliable source is needed to replace source #4.
  • The fourth paragraph is entirely uncited.

Construction of 1952 span[edit]

  • I'd recommend breaking this into two paragraphs.
    • While I agree that the paragraph is beefy, it's all one coherent story/thought and I can't see a place that would be good for a break. AviationFreak💬 15:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would recommend the second paragraph begin with Ground was broken. But not a big deal either way. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence is uncited.

Notable incidents[edit]

  • The first paragraph makes a bold claim of "often cited" with a single fluff-piece citation.
  • The second sentence should either be cited (if a single citation noting the multiple closures is available) or reworded, as the next two paragraphs do not mention traffic congestion from the closures.
  • In the third paragraph, remove "has" both times it is used.

Specifications and operations[edit]

  • Citation needed for the claim of 102nd longest over-water bridge. Given the rate of new bridges of this length (one or more a year), that number is likely to change rather frequently.

Structural details[edit]

  • Several uncited points in this section.
    • Can't find much sourcing for this section - The structural details of the bridge don't appear to be stated anywhere particularly reliable, but I think most of the info in this section can be seen in the images on the page. Not sure if this falls under WP:OR. AviationFreak💬 01:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic control[edit]

  • First paragraph is uncited.
  • The fourth and especially fifth paragraphs here are very long. I would recommend simplifying some of the details; the exact criteria for two-way traffic and details of when to merge aren't really needed for an article of this scope.
  • There's a lot of images here, several of which don't really support the text in the section. For those images that are kept, please have them be default thumbnails (no size specified) and make sure that text isn't squeezed between left-aligned and right-aligned images. (I also recommend using {{clear}} and its directional variants to make sure that images stay in their proper sections.)
  • Done; I'm not great with image formatting or anything in that realm, but I removed the excess images/text and WP:SANDWICH. Added an image that illustrates the text. AviationFreak💬 02:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tolls and fees[edit]

  • This can be combined into one or two paragraphs.
  • All-electronic tolling began on May 12, 2020... is more clear than As of May 12, 2020.

Impact[edit]

  • That image looks like the best one on Commons, and the closest info I can find on a cumulative suicide number/yearly rate is this 1995 article that says ~75 people from 1952-1995. Very much outdated. AviationFreak💬 02:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future expansion[edit]

  • Would you be able to add a map of the proposed crossing locations? There's no need to create your own map from scratch - {{Overlay}} or {{Location map+}} should work fine.
  • Both current images in this section are good, but would be more useful elsewhere in the article. The large panorama should go under the structural details.
  • Done. Added overlay map and moved pano, though I'm not sure where else to put the smaller one. I think it works as-is, personally. AviationFreak💬 03:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

  • No need to link to the two neighborhoods (if their relation to the bridge is significant, they should be in the text.)

Bay Bridge Walk and Run[edit]

References[edit]

All reference numbers here are from this version.

  • Refs 1 and 2 are permanent dead links. Can they be replaced with a live link (or archived links)?
  • There's a mixture of mdy and dmy dates. The former should be used since this is a US article.
  • Refs like 8, 33, 34, and 46 can probably have a proper website name (or just MTA as the published), rather than just the url.
  • Ref 45 has an error - looks like it should be {{cite news}} rather than {{cite journal}}
  • Date format on ref 47
  • Ref 48 is a permanent dead link.
  • Refs 56 through 59 are self-published sources; while they appear to be subject-matter experts, adding some non-self-published sources would be ideal.
  • I've done some of these, others might not be possible - Not sure what you mean by "proper website name," but I've added MTA as the publisher. Ref 48 may be unrecoverable and doesn't appear to be archived. 56 was replaced, I couldn't find an alternative for 57. Best source I could find for 58 was here, but it's not clear or in-depth on the subject matter addressed by the current citation. The info for 59 was outdated and I've updated it with a new citation. AviationFreak💬 23:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

  • Official websites should be the first external links
  • The two live videos can probably go on one line.
  • That 1950 study looks like it could be a useful citation, but that's not essential.
  • Authority control should go below the navigation templates.
  • Having the three upstream bridges in the template is rather awkward. I'd say just go with 695.
  • Done. I believe authority control is already in place, so I didn't touch it. AviationFreak💬 23:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

I just made a few more copyedits. Great work on this article! Passing as GA. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chesapeake_Bay_Bridge&oldid=1206646722"