- I'll be reviewing this article in the coming days. Thanks. Lourdes 14:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- It has been six days. Will you be reviewing it soon? SJ Morg (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes of course. This weekend please. Lourdes 15:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, if you have time, need your help in assessing the copyright status of images used in this article. Thanks for the time spared, in advance. Lourdes 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Review comments by Lourdes
- ---------------
- Material review (Status: Review completed; partial changes done by editors; waiting for editors to respond to final comments...)
- Lede
- "The bridges connected Madison Street and Hawthorne Avenue, which is the approximate site of the current Hawthorne Bridge." What is the approximate site? Madison Street? Or Hawthorne Avenue? Or did you mean, "The bridges connected Madison Street and Hawthorne Avenue, currently connected by the Hawthorne Bridge."?
- "They are sometimes referred to as Madison Street Bridge No. 1 and Madison Street Bridge No. 2." We could cut out the bold letters in this. We might also wish to clarify which is Madison Street Bridge No. 1 and which No. 2. Obviously, the earlier one must be the No. 1. But some simple clarification might help. What do you think?
- "The 1900 bridge has alternatively been referred to as the "rebuilt" Madison Street Bridge (of 1891), rather than as a new bridge, because it was rebuilt on the same piers." Would an alternative construction of this look better? Would you have any options? (For example, the term "1900 bridge" refers to which bridge? Again, it might be obvious to us. Maybe not to some.)
- I'll continue my review on the other sections subsequently. Lourdes 16:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes Jsayre64, thanks SJ Morg for the editing in the lede. Some more points below:
- Would you wish to mention the hook in the main lede too? It's not necessary (as you have already mentioned it within the article), but would make the article quite interesting, especially for readers who reach it from the Wikipedia main page when this may get listed...
- I would prefer that words like piers, truss are wiki-linked (you've done that inside the infobox, but it would be good to have the same done early on within the main text).
- Done, but feel free to go ahead and make changes of that nature yourself; no need to ask here. SJ Morg (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Both were swing bridges." The statement comes out as oddly separate in the lead. You could possibly include the statement in the first line as follows, "The Madison Street Bridge, or Madison Bridge, refers to two different swing bridges... "
- I have expanded the sentence to indicate why I added it (as a separate sentence) in the first place. SJ Morg (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- First bridge
 "At that time, the bridge's east end was in the city of East Portland, Oregon, but East Portland merged with its larger neighbor in July of the same year, becoming part of the city of Portland." Consider removing "but", and replacing the comma before that with perhaps a semi-colon. Or construct a separate sentence (e.g. "Subsequently, in July of the same year, East Portland merged with its larger neighbor, becoming part of the city of Portland.").
- Changed. SJ Morg (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Rest of the section is very well written. Thank you.
- Second bridge
- The storyline developed in this reads quite nice. Thank you. Just one suggestion though. You could consider adding to the the last line ("The Hawthorne Bridge opened in December 1910.") details that you included in the lede (details of the bridge being in the same alignment as the past bridges).
- Phrase added. SJ Morg (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Infoboxes
- As I have not worked with bridge infoboxes before, I find it odd that if a bridge has already closed down, the infobox still uses the present tense in words like "Carries", "Crosses". Is there a way to handle this? If not, that's okay. But if there's some method to do that, it would be good for our readers to not get confused.
- I agree completely, and I already looked for a fix to that problem last week, but found none. It's a shortcoming of the template {{Infobox bridge}}. If I had more time, I might leave a message on the template's talk page to request that an option for that be added, but I'm too busy right now. SJ Morg (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's the end of my review on the contents. Thanks. Lourdes 07:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- ---------------
- Image review (Status: Completed)
- File:Madison_street_bridge_ca_1900.jpg: when/where was this first published? The given tag requires that it was published (not just created) before 1923. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- No idea. I just found the image at Commons. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, I checked the source link mentioned in the original file. The Publisher is mentioned to be Acme Commercial Studio; Portland, OR, and the "Date" is mentioned to be "ca. 1900". There's no differentiation given between created versus published date. At the same time, the following detail is also given:
- "Collection Source: Clark County Historical Museum Photographs Collection.... Original images were scanned as 300 dpi TIFF files on a Microtek 9600XL scanner. 100 dpi JPEG files were then added to the CONTENT database at the WSU Libraries. Rights To request a copy and permission to use this image, contact the Clark County Historical Museum at 1511 Main Street, Vancouver WA 98660 360.993.5679 or visitwww.cchmuseum.org."
- Does this detail help? Thanks. Lourdes 01:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately no. If we're to keep the current tag, we really need a firm publication date. As an archival photo, this may or may not have been published, early or ever. Now, someone could get in touch with the museum and see if they have more details... Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ok. I'll advise the editors to do that. Till that time Nikkimaria, for the purpose of this Dyk review, shall I advise removing the image? Or would a change in image tag make do? Thanks for your invaluable suggestions. Lourdes 02:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- It really depends what we can find out about the image's origins - it's possible that another tag such as {{PD-US-unpublished}} would apply, but without a publication date I can't say for sure. Removing the image would of course avoid the issue of its licensing entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. For now, I'll advise the editors to remove the image entirely unless they are able to provide details on the publishing date. There is another image in the article, which was published on 17 March 1908. I hope that passes muster? Lourdes 02:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, that one seems fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, and have a great week ahead. Lourdes 02:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Wouldn't the image you are concerned about be OK because the author died more than 100 years ago? The image source says the author is J.F. Ford, who died in 1914, according to the OSU library and several other sources if you do a Google search. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Thank you, Lourdes and Nikkimaria. Your concerns over the image are valid. Many Commons uploaders don't seem to understand the distinction between when a photo was taken and when it was published (or, in some cases, don't care and figure no one will notice), although I cannot say whether that was the case here. From time to time, I tag images on Commons for that very issue – lack of evidence to support a claim of publication (before 1923) – such as this one earlier this month. The image in question here lacks the necessary information to support the claim that it has been published (ever), let alone published before 1923. I have removed it from the article, but will hold off tagging it for possible deletion from Commons for now, at least while this discussion is still ongoing. If someone else wants to contact the uploader or the museum that was the source, feel free. The article still has an image: The one I uploaded that was published in a newspaper in 1908. I was unaware of {{PD-US-unpublished}}. I do not know whether it applies in this case, but the "created before 1896" point definitely does not. While the source page says "ca. 1900", the photo cannot have been taken before fall 1900, because it shows a 'tower' above the center of the swing span, and that structure was not present in the 1891 bridge and not added to the 1900 bridge until fall 1900 (several months after the 1900 bridge opened to traffic), as the article text indicates (info. researched and added by me).
With regard to the comments above about the wording in the lede: Personally, I feel that some of these fall outside the scope of a DYK nomination review, as I don't feel any of them was a major issue, but they were reasonable points (particuarly #1) and I have modified the text of the article to address all of them. – SJ Morg (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Lourdes: Although I thank you for taking time to do a review, it appears to me as though you are treating this as though it were a GA nomination, rather than a DYK nomination. With the exception of the (c. 1900) image, none of the points you have raised thus far about the article's content – none of them – disqualifies the article for DYK, and therefore I don't feel they needed to be raised here. (None of the points raised is mentioned at Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide, for example.) Nevertheless, I have addressed some of them, and will leave it to the nominator or other editors to address the other points. SJ Morg (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- SJ Morg thank you for the time taken to improve the article. You may have noticed that all the points I had written were very clearly put forward as suggestions. I am very appreciative of the effort taken by you to incorporate the same. If you had said you don't agree with the suggestions, I don't think that would have been a reason to fail this Dyk (I am mentioning this as I feel you have misread my advise). Your efforts, and those of other editors, including me, are towards improving content on this project. There's no reason that a Dyk should not come out with outstanding prose, with statements that are not confusing, and infoboxes that do not trip the tense. Specially because such articles come up on the main page. So yes, while I reiterate that in case you had not addressed my suggestions, I would still have passed this, I don't see any reason to not provide quality suggestions to competent editors such as you. I hope that clarifies my stand. Lourdes 09:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- ---------------
- Citations review (Status: Completed)
- All citations check out. The ones to which I don't have access, I am assuming good faith with respect to quoted statements. Lourdes 07:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- ---------------
- Overall article structure review (Status: Completed)
- The structure of the article is quite well done and provides a good, succinct read. Lourdes 07:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- ---------------
|
No issues found with article, ready for human review.
Excellent article; good to be released. Lourdes