Talk:Big Four Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleBig Four 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
June 10, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 13, 2018.

New image[edit]

I have another picture of this bridge we could use. It was taken from beneath the Kennedy Bridge on the Indiana side.--Bedford 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I substituted in the new image. How does it look? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 22:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fire sale[edit]

Jahnx, do you think we can expand this 5x, so we can get a DYK for it? I took a bunch of pictures today of it, including video.--Bedford 22:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The pictures have been uploaded: Category:Images of the Big Four Bridge.--Bedford 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It's been expanded quite a bit, but I don't think will earn a DYK out of it. The Fire section needs work, I'm not sure I would have to search and I don't have the time but I think Louisville doesn't have a fire boat and that the boat that couldn't reach the flames was the Coast Guard. There is some information there that honestly doesn't really pertain to the incident in regards to the city purchasing another fire boat. Next the section also seems repetative. This article sure exploded after this event, There have been two more fires since the 1970's which you may have to search for records of that offline in an old newspaper. So adding coverage of all four fires would be essential to that sections growth. -Jahnx (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It was after I posted the above message that I added to the article. It's been increased 4.7x, which is probably close enough to 5x for the DYK. It was a Louisville fireboat that was too small to reach it, as it was an interview with the Louisville fire chief on WAVE 3 who said it about the boat. Still probably need to decide which fire pictures are betetr than others.--Bedford 01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I like Image:Big 4 Fire V.jpg and Image:Big 4 Fire VI.jpg for fire pics, leaving the 1975 picture of the bridge in the history section would be my preference. -Jahnx (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm done for today but I will search for more informaiton regarding the 1987 fire and hopefully we can seperate the information on the two fires into two sub categories. -Jahnx (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, this is close to being GA. I haven't gotten a GA yet, and I don't think you have either, so we are close.--Bedford 02:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Gallery[edit]

I'm not sure the additional photos at the bottom add anything to the article, they look very similar to each other and most are near-duplicates of photos earlier in the article. Paulbrock (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I put all I had up so we could decide which ones should remain; I never intended for all to stay. I agree, that does look bad to have so many. Anyone have particular ones they think should be removed?--Bedford Pray 03:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Fires[edit]

I think this section needs a bit of tweaking - either it's predominantly about the 2008 Fire, in which case the section heading should be changed, or it's discussing fires in general, in which case the 2008 Fire should not have undue weight; my opinion is that the section suffers from recentism and there is far too much detail on e.g. how the fire was put out. Paulbrock (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix the recentism you saw; how does it look now?--Bedford Pray 04:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Big Four Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Review is imminent Arsenikk (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 8, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article has good enough prose and flow for GA status, but there are a few specifics that should be adressed, as described below.
  • The lead is too long for one paragraph, split it in two. Rewrite the sentence on the other passenger bridge that crosses the river.
 Done--Bedford Pray 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Include United States in first sentence and infobox.
 Done Arsenikk (talk)
  • The first ref does not state the length of the bridge; should find it somewhere else and link to it.
  • Do you have this from one of the books? Can't find the length on the internet, and vital statistics must be references for GA.
    •  Done Found a reference; turns out the provided length was wrong. Good thing a reference was insisted upon. Arsenikk (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Include the coordinates. You can find them in the first reference; use {{coor}}
 Done --Bedford Pray
  • In the overview truss and rivet should be wikilinked.
 Done Arsenikk (talk)
  • The history section should be sectioned up, and other parts, like ownership, included in the history section.
 Done Arsenikk (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Electric cars are automobiles that run on electricity. Interurbans are interurbans; simplify.
 Done Arsenikk (talk)
  • Beware the difference between a en-dash and em-dash—only em-dashes should be used as punctuation.
 Done Arsenikk (talk)
  • Why is Spring Street Freight House a see also; either incorporate it into the article or leave it out—only intutitive articles should go under see also.
 Done, I explained reason for adding it on the page--Bedford Pray 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikilink to President of Costa Rica and Indiana Department of Transportation.
 Done Arsenikk (talk)
  • The fire section is the only one that should have a thorough rewrite; several points need attention:
    • The first paragraph says everything twice, rewrite it to only say things once
 Done Arsenikk (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Conversions to metric are needed.
 Done Arsenikk (talk)
    • Rewrite to remove the quotation, without actually using quotation marks or sourcing.
 Done Arsenikk (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Do not hope for things in an encyclopedia, rephrase.
 Done Arsenikk (talk)
2. Factually accurate?: Pass. All linked references verified.
  • As a tip (not a GA requirement) I recommend using the {{cite}} template in inline reference; this avoids problems as were seen with all-bond references.
3. Broad in coverage?: There is not enough about the rail service on the bridge; such things as single/double track, freight usage are missing. At least one paragraph on this should be composed.
  •  Done added a sentence.  Done
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?:
  • Choose the best pictures, and remove the gallery. And there are better images of the bridge than the current infobox one; put the best at the top.
 Done --Bedford Pray 23:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Removed forced thumb size; forcing the view preferences is a bad habit.
 Done Arsenikk (talk)
Is this necessary for GA? Putting the pics on commons makes it harder to use, in my experience.--Bedford Pray 23:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I seem to have confused something (bear with me, this is my first GA review). But in my opinion leaving pictures off the commons creates great problems the day someone wants the pictures on another language project; personally I spend hours searching for pictures on the Norwegian and German Wikipedia and transferring them to the commons. Out of mere curiosity, how does pics on the commons make them hard to use? Arsenikk (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It is harder to keep track of what images are available if on Com mons. Plus, if for some reason some idiot wants an image deleted, I won't know until its too late if its on commons. Plus, should the image be featured on the main page in the future, it is easier for all concerned if its not on commons.--Bedford Pray 17:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

It actually is quite good, just a lot of picky small stuff to look at, a fair bit I did myself. Good work so far:) Arsenikk (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to ask, if everything is pass, then what is the holdup? I see what I can do.--Bedford Pray 22:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I was a bit imprecise, but point 1 and 6 are not pass, but it should be a fairly simple task in my eyes. Half the stuff I did while going through the review, just making you aware of the corrections. Arsenikk (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination pass[edit]

I have passed this article as a good article, based on all criteria that were questioned have been seen to.

Further work would be needed for FA status; mainly related to the flow of the prose. At current the article is well written, but not all sentences flow smoothly enough for the folks at FA; in my eyes this is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and one may want to contact someone at the League of Copyeditors to do this kind of work. I absolutely recommend checking out User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a, a great guide getting better flow in the prose—it helped me at least. There are only a few unreferenced claims, fix those and FA status may be in reach. Also consider rescanning the scanned picture; it is good, but the scanning is not (a minimum requirement would be that it is straight).

Finally I would like to congratulate all participants on the work of creating a good article. Arsenikk (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have a scanner at the time, so I took the picture using my digital; camera. If I can get my scanner working (new computer), I'll rscan the image. Thanks for reviewing.--Bedford Pray 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy Interchange[edit]

The blurb about the interchange seems misplaced since it is in a section that seems to be about much earlier events. Perhaps it needs moving but I wasn't clear on where exactly. ++Lar: t/c 11:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Largest pedestrian-only bridge?[edit]

Somebody added a todo for the main Louisville article saying that this bridge, if complete, would be the largest pedestrian-only bridge, but I'm not sure if they meant in the U.S. or the world. Does anyone have any information about this they could add to the article? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not going be completed any time soon so it's a moot point. This thing's been "coming soon" since 1989... even in boom years it couldn't get funding. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Big Four Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big Four Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Four Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Four Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)