Wikipedia:Peer review/Harvard Bridge/archive1

Harvard Bridge

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I and others have made numerous changes to it, expanding and improving it drastically. I have one area of concern, but I'm wondering what others, who are unfamiliar with the article, might suggest.

Thanks, Denimadept (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and I love the smoot - here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to WP:FAC.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are 14 Featured articles on bridges in Category:FA-Class Bridge articles several of which would be good models.
The lead is way too shart per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
Also make sure to provide context to the reader - the lead does not mention the bridge is in Massachusetts or the United States. Not everyone worldwide knows where Cambridge and Boston are. Or which way are looking in the panoramic view - the caption should identify the shores (which is Boston and which is Cambridge and the bridge in the distance, prominent buildings might be identified too).
The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in most cases. This will improve flow.
Organization is muddled - unless there is good reason not to, it is generally best to tell things chronologically. For example we are told the bridge is completed, then its cost to build, then we are told about the third commissioner's death several months before all this. I am not sure what the quote about the dead commissioner adds to the article either.
The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
I like the smoots, but would not include them in the infobox instead of feet - I would list the sidewalk length in feet and then give meters and smoots
Refs need more information in several cases and the citation style is not consistent - see the model FAs for examples. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
The {{inflation}} template might be useful
I had a covered bridge article at FAC that iused decimal feet and was asked to convert them to feet and inches - the {{convert}} template can handle that too
I think this bridge might be pictured in some of the illustrations in the book Make Way for Ducklings - probably worth a mention if it is the same bridge. Or if it is in TV shows or movies you could add an in popular culture section
This generally seems well referenced, but there are a few places without refs that need them (some marked with tags already). My rule of thumb is every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
The Houdini section is very short - could it be merged elsewhere?
Have you looked at the National Bridge Inventory for this? Ask if you are not sure how to do this.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have copied this from my talk page as it seemed to make more sense to have this discussion here. My comments are based on this version, after I made one edit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Bridge review feedback comments

Thanks for the review! I've implemented several of your suggestions, see the edit history for details. I have a few comments for you, though.

Organization is chronological in specific sections, and generally regarding the order of sections as well. Some things, mainly in the first few sections, overlap because that's how it works: politics and accounting are separated from the engineering tasks. Or so I see it.

I'm not understanding your point about "pull quotes". The {{cquote}} template seems to work well there. Since I got rid of the Greeley text, there's only one such quote now. That may help, no?
- I fixed this with one edit. A pull quote repeats material already in the article and is set off here with the big blue quoteation marks. The blockquote sets off the block of material without the fancy blue quotes. This is needed for FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The {{cquote}} looks better in my opinion, but you have more experience in this. When do we use the {{cquote}}?
    - Cquote is used only if it is a pull quote (usually if there are not many images and you want to emphaisze something by repeating it, which is what a pull quote does). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The smoots are not in the infobox instead of feet. Feet are there too, as are meters.
- Huh? The sidewalk length is given in smoots and meters, but NOT feet. The MOS says to give units in the standard for that country first (feet), then give metirc and other conversions. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I see what you mean. That's intentional, as it's only the length measured by the fraternity, not that of the actual bridge. Perhaps reversing the order will do.

Cites are a problem, no argument. In general, the full cite is used first, then a sub-cite with different page numbers is used subsequently, instead of repeating the same thing over and over with different page numbers as the only change. Do you have a suggestion for a better way to do this?
- If you want to use this system, which is fine, see Joseph Priestley House for an example - you list the sources separately and just use a short identifier for the refs themselves (Chicago Style). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll have to get to this.

Someone who has a copy of Make Way for Ducklings is welcome to check it and add to this. I don't have one and feel it's a trivial reference which the article doesn't need. Such is about the book, not the bridge. It belongs on the book's article with a link to the bridge's article, if true.

Same with any other references which are about those sources rather than the bridge. Trivia is to be removed, not added, unless it is strongly co-related to the subject. Such may exist, I have no idea. I seem to remember having removed quite a bit of it last Spring.

I consider the Houdini section superfluous, but others don't, so I referenced it and got two images, one of which was later pulled by someone who felt it was a copyright violation even though I took the picture. The section used to be a trivia section. Houdini performed many places, this was just one of them.
- I think it is notable, but it should should be integrated into the rest of the article somewhere. The FAs I have written on covered bridges have a use section that such information would fit in, perhaps. The current "Maintenance and updates" section might also be a place for it - perhaps renamed as "Use and updates" or something similar. I would also crop the large black bars above and below the image - they add nothing. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can't crop it like that w/o making the image file size notably bigger. It doesn't make sense to me, but that's what Photoshop did when I tried. I may have to make another attempt.
    - Just made another attempt and was reminded about the solution I figured out last time. The proper solution is to find a copy of the plate and scan it myself. I've not yet found time to do this. If I crop and save, the 56KB file goes to 90KB+ at quality 60. To keep the size down, I have to sacrifice too much quality. - Denimadept (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will the National Bridge Inventory have as much information about this bridge as we've already placed in it? I believe I have a copy of it from last year (it's downloadable, in sections), but have yet to write software to make use of it. This is an area where I encourage other editors to contribute. :-)
- I do not think this would pass FAC without the NBI info - FAs are supposed to be comprehensive. There is a web page with these results here. See Cogan House Covered Bridge for an example of how to cite this and the information given in that case. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found it, finally. The entry says it's on the NRHP, but that I've not yet found. I may have to decode the NBI db myself, to get that information.
    - Ask at the NRHP WikiProject talk page - they are very helpful and can find it for you. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the assist! Please reply here, if you do answer. - Denimadept (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Just looking at it again, the lead still needs to be expanded, there are still places that have no refs that need them, and there are still several short paragraphs that need to be combined with others or perhaps expanded. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd appreciate your pointing out where cites are needed. The paragraphs are more a matter of taste and topic, I think, though I'm certainly interested in specific instances. - Denimadept (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologize I somehow removed an "e" with my previous edit. I will try to add a few {{fact}} tags, but basically if a paragraph has no ref or one or more sentences have no refs, they should have cites added. No paragraph should end without a cite, and all direct quotes, stats, and extraoridnary claims need them too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The bit about sounding like original research is true, no lie. It's to answer why there's such a big difference between the length as measured by smoots and the actual length of the bridge. I seem to remember the question has risen before. How would you suggest reformulating this to fix both issues? - Denimadept (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmmm, please see WP:OR - unless it can be sourced to a reliable source, I am not sure how to include that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We have all the referenced facts right there in the article prior to that section. It's a problem. - Denimadept (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I think I've figured out a solution. Off to edit! - Denimadept (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]