Template:Did you know nominations/Shoreham Hill Bridge
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Shoreham Hill Bridge edit
... that the original Shoreham Hill Bridge was purposely built to be unsightly to encourage the public to demand a more aesthetically pleasing and expensive bridge?
- Reviewed: How to Be Single (film)
Created by Antony-22 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, adequately referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ still needed. Would you mind pointing me to the pages in the source where it says the bridge was built this way "on purpose"? I also cannot find the claim in the article that "This was done in order to encourage the public to demand a more aesthetically pleasing and expensive bridge, a strategy endorsed by the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Commission executive officer Ulysses S. Grant III". Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Page 96: "When the bridge opened in May 1927, the Evening Star advised that it was only a temporary expedient destined to be replaced by a 'permanent and artistic structure, in keeping with the surroundings,' as soon as adequate funds became available." and page 92: "Grant encouraged Moore to regard the unsightly spans as temporary expedients calculated to increase public support for improvements to the parkway." QPQ done. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK, but ... the source seems to imply that the bridge was originally built to be utilitarian, rather than unsightly, and that U.S. Grant put this spin on it after it was built. We've been getting some flak from the people over at WP:ERRORS about accuracy of hooks, so I just want to be 100% sure about what's going on here. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I see what you mean. How about this:
- ALT1:
... that the unsightly design of the original Shoreham Hill Bridge in Washington, D.C. was meant to to encourage the public to demand a more aesthetically pleasing and expensive bridge?
- ALT1:
- Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- It would be more accurate to say:
- ALT2:
... that according to Ulysses S. Grant III, the unsightly design of the original Shoreham Hill Bridge in Washington, D.C. would encourage the public to demand a more aesthetic and expensive bridge?Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I see what you mean. How about this:
- Page 96: "When the bridge opened in May 1927, the Evening Star advised that it was only a temporary expedient destined to be replaced by a 'permanent and artistic structure, in keeping with the surroundings,' as soon as adequate funds became available." and page 92: "Grant encouraged Moore to regard the unsightly spans as temporary expedients calculated to increase public support for improvements to the parkway." QPQ done. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you're getting at. How about this:
- ALT3: ... that Ulysses S. Grant III approved the unsightly design of the original Shoreham Hill Bridge in Washington, D.C. because it would encourage the public to demand a more aesthetic and expensive bridge? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
