Talk:Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Florida Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Bridges and Tunnels Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Location
Based on the news reports, the bridge appears to have been located at 25.761208, -80.372766. 216.81.81.81 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Construction reporting
- news.fiu.edu/2018/03/community-gathers-to-watch-950-ton-bridge-move-across-southwest-8th-street/120395
216.81.81.81 (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
It appears from this and similar articles the official name of the bridge is UniversityCity Pedestrian Bridge. It may be interesting to note, and likely to be addressed later, the design shows it to be a cable-supported bridge, and those were not yet installed.--KMJKWhite (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Reminder on sourcing
Just a reminder that editors should always take particular care with RS on these sort of late breaking news stories. Many nominal RS can produce question work. For example my local paper here in Auckland, NZ (which includes a lot of Daily Mail content and even their own content can be a bit iffy) says the construction company took their website down. I doubt they know this. What happens in a lot of these cases is if the site isn't behind some sort of competent CDN like CloudFlare, the website is effectively DDoSed. Interest from the public is two orders of magnitude higher than normal, or maybe even more and it simply can't handle it. For a fairly unknown construction company (or other such things) this often isn't that hard. Maybe the website was at peaks, only getting a a few ten hits a minute before. Suddenly it's getting 1000 or more. (Stuff on their webpage, and the company tweeting a story on the bridge 3 hours or so before it collapsed probably helped make them viral.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Should we split the article into 2 separate projects? One for the bridge and one for the incidence of collapse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinbenlv (talk • contribs) 22:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- The bridge itself isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. See similar bridge incidents (e.g. I-5 Skagit River Bridge collapse) where the bridge's background is integrated into the article. SounderBruce 22:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Stress Test
It seems dubious to state "bridge was undergoing stress test at the time of collapse". One of the articles states company officials declined to comment on whether the bridge had undergone a stress test, and the other article states "workers at the scene said it was undergoing some sort of stress test" (emphasis added). Sounds an awful lot like hearsay to me, so we should probably refrain from mentioning this until an authoritative source states this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Closetsingle (talk • contribs)
- I've removed it twice. The source is reporting hearsay and speculation, it has no place in the article until something comes from a clearly authoritative source. Wikipedia doesn't publish speculation just because somebody said it somewhere. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- A bystander coming to the conclusion that the bridge collapsed because a blue cable fell on a blue box doesn't measure up to Wikipedia sourcing requirements. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- What part of "Congressman confirms that a stress test was underway at the time of the collapse" is unclear to you?--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:C57:B925:112F:96D (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)