Talk:BP Pedestrian Bridge/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Well written but I have a few issues:

Introduction "Additionally, it serves acoustic and functional needs." seems awkward. Either expand this sentence or remove it.
- I am not sure how much you wanted it expanded. Is this enough?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That works for me. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Details "It contains large sculptural plates of curvilinear stainless steel." again, same issue. Try explaining what "curvilinear" might look like (good luck with that) or add something which might tell us why this is unique, important, or relevant.
- Again, not sure how much is needed here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This sentence just seems out of place to me. You don't need to go overboard, just try to make the sentence relevant instead of just saying that it "has curvilinear plates" which doesn't really explain much. When I get time I will see what I can do for it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I imaging an architect, engineer, or metalwork guy might specifically describe the specific severity of the curve. I have no information on that. I especially think there is some detail regarding curvilinear plates and flat interlocking panel discussion later. I do not understand the detail any further than what I have written though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I added a sentence to further describe how the curvilinear plates affect the aesthetic design of the bridge. I thought this part needed further explanation for those who haven't looked at the pictures yet, or for readers who are perhaps blind. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Details "it is built to highway standards and can uphold a full capacity load of pedestrians." what exactly is a "full capacity load of pedestrians"? Tell us how much weight it can handle or how many average persons it can support, just be more specific in general.
- I am a guy who writes articles on all things Chicago. I am working from a reference in a Chicago newspaper, where the quote is "You could fill that whole thing up with people wall to wall and it would be fine. It's built to highway standards". If I were a bridge guy, an architect, or an engineer, I would probably know how to do what you are asking. There are probably bridge specs in terms of amount of weight it is capable of holding. I imagine descriptions is architectural or engineering sources may describe this in detail. I do not have such sources at my disposal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats fine, I'll see if I can dig up anything. If not, we can just forget it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I put a call into the city.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suppose "highway standards" is sufficient. Although if you ever find out what the specific numbers are, I think it would make a great addition to this article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Details "The city not only mandates that the bridge be swept and washed daily, but also that the railings be wiped free of fingerprints." The previous sentence mentions the bridge was designed without standard handrails, yet the "rails" must be wiped daily? I changed this to "guard rails" so no action here is necessary, just wanted to point that out.
- You must be a bridge guy, or architect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - lol, No. But I do specialize in the Transportation category of articles and technical details are important in articles of these types. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Construction "22-gauge stainless steel #316 with an angel hair finish..." As far as I know, sentences shouldn't start with a number. Try rearranging this sentence for better flow. I'm also left wondering where this sheet metal was used, on the exterior? And I have no idea what #316 is, try explaining what it looks like.
- done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Construction "installed a custom #4 brushed stainless steel handrail on the bridge" what is #4 brushed stainless steel? Also, the previous paragraph mentions there were no "standard handrails" designed for the bridge, which kinda contradicts this sentence. Please expound on these topics.
- Pictorial evidence belies handrails. Not sure what to do. Were rails removed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For handarails see Image:Millenium Park.jpg, and Image:BP Pedestrian Bridge.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps the emphasis should be on "standard handrails" which seems to be the issue here. Looks to me like there are indeed some type of handrails, just not the kind you would typically see. I'll mull this one over when I get time and think of a solution. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I put a call into the city on this one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bridges#BP_Pedestrian_Bridge says these are parapets serving as guard rails.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Email from Ed Uhlir, Director of Design, Architecture and Landscape for Millennium Park mentions "handrails are not required because the 5% slope is gentle and can be negotiated easily even by people in wheelchairs"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the changes that have been made are sufficient. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Construction "by California SMACNA for the project" what is the SMACNA?
- I linked the term.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Construction "The original landscaping surrounding the bridge did not seem aesthetic." I changed this to "asthetically pleasing" but it would also be nice to know who didn't think it was aesthetic enough and why.
- done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy "was closed until 7:00 A.M. the next day" I'm not really sure why the bridge was closed, a little more explanation would be helpful.
- I assume there was a fear of vandalism from outraged Pavilion attendees. The reader kind of has to read between the lines.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just seems kind of odd to state that it was closed without giving a reason. You could add something stating that the attendees were outraged over being charged for seating or something to make it a little more clear. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - O.K. done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
After further consideration... I removed the image of the chicago marathon, and relocated the large 4-part image into its own section to avoid stackups and squeezeing the text with too many images. Contrary to what most wikipedians have heard, image galleries are not "discouraged"... only pages that consist entirely of an image gallery are discouraged. I started to remove the "from overpass" and "from ramp" images but, they aren't that great and this page already has a few too many for its size. But with the addition of the gallery section I was able to accommodate them. I'm still not entirely satisfied with the captions, but this isn't Featured Article review, so they are simply "good" enough.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall, well written, well sourced, and well composed article. I like to see complete sentences in photo captions, but that is personal preference and not a GA requirement, so I'll let that pass. But captions are important as many people, when they first encounter an article, simply skim thru and glance at the photos while reading the captions... this is where you have the chance to capture the reader's attention and draw them into reading the entire article. I tend to pay attention to photo captions more than anything when I am composing an article, I think they are the most important part. But that's just my advice. I would gladly pass this once the issues are addressed. I made some edits to the article and if I changed anything I shouldn't have please let me know or fix it. Thanks to all the contributors for their hard work in writing this article, especially Tony. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Designed to bear a heavy load without structural problems caused by its own weight" Has any bridge anywhere NOT been designed thusly, successfully or not?