Talk:Pleasure Beach Bridge

Pleasure Beach 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.
Review: March 7, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pleasure Beach Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Any reason why the infobox doesn't have an "open" year?
- Done
I believe there's also a toll parameter in there too that seems appropriate?
- The price of the toll is not something I found - and it was only a toll bridge for 7 years or so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Curious mix of "Bridgeport, Connecticut" and "Bridgeport (Connecticut)".
- Done
"bridge" appears five times in the first three sentences which makes for repetitive prose.
- Done
"The bridge burned in " do you mean "The bridge was damaged by fire in..."
- Done Rewrote in a different way
"it will become an undisturbed protected salt match or to be revitalized" doesn't flow correctly for me, perhaps just remove the last "to".
- Done
" failed to materialize " makes it sound ethereal. Perhaps "did not commence"?
- Done
"riveted Warren through-truss.[1]:20–21 A Warren truss consists of longitudinal" would make better reading if you merged these, to, say "riveted Warren through-truss,[1]:20–21 consisting of longitudinal...."
- Done
Consider adding {{convert}} to provide metric measurements alongside the Imperial units you've used.
- Done
You use the same reference for five consecutive sentences in the History section, this is slightly overkill if you ask me.
- I prefer overkill to underkill... I really believe in being able to pull the exact source for seemingly trivial pieces of information.
"Repairs were done on the " -> "Repairs were made to the "
- Done
"the fire" is mentioned four times in three sentences, again a little repetitive.
- Fixed.
"Estimations " why not just "Estimates"?
- Fixed.
" throughout the years." not sure this is necessary at all.
- Fixed
"but did not materialize" see above, same comment applies here.
- Fixed
" Connecticut Audubon " who or what is this?
- The full name is "Connecticut Audubon Society" and while it lacks a page... should be rather self-explanatory. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"delayed repeatedly into 2013...." update?
- Alas, no information. So I decided to not speculate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times is The New York Times, be consistent with italics too.
- Fixed.
Things like the "Connecticut Post" are presumably newspapers so should be shown in italics. Check the other refs.
- I had Publisher instead of Work fields. So I fixed that.
"Connecticute Department of Transportation." ref 1, I assume that should be "..cut" not "...cute"?
- Thanks.. fixed that! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This source which refers to a book about Bridgeport disagrees with the year the bridge burned.
- And that source is wrong; I have three different sources, one which gives the time and details of how long the fire lasted. If ""Bridge to Beach Burns: Stranding 200 people". Hartford Courant. 17 June 1996. Retrieved 24 January 2014." is not viewable to you, the New York times archive link says "June 30, 1996 ...
- PAUL OLIVA was relaxing ... two Sundays ago when he noticed a billowing column of black smoke rising above the trees..." - I'll get to the other issues in short order though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm glad, I'm just doing a job on checking sources, looking for other info etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few issues, so I'll place this on hold for a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did the fixes needed and cleaned up some other minor things. But it looks like I have some work to fix on other pages with the CAS not having a page. But I am neither a member or close to them. But one thing at a time, right! Thanks for pointing out the issues, I'll try to be on as much as I can to fix anything else. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, I made a couple of really minor tweaks but I think you've got a good article on your hands, thanks for your quick and constructive responses. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the pass. It has been great to work with you on this and I see you took my other two bridge nominations. These topics may be a bit obscure, but they are important nonetheless. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]