Talk:Mike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 8, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

Additional Images[edit]

Here are some more images for use (if desired) in the article.


Xspartachris 07:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a Minute.[edit]

Did I see this in Extreme Engineering? --  Boogster  Go!  17:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The article says "first concrete-steel composite arch bridge built in the United States", but it doesn't say why they felt it is necessary to use new engineering on this particualr bridge? Are there inherant dangers or issues with this particular span? This certainly seems as precarious a situation as any for a first time technology/engineering? (Delos905 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Doubtful that this would be the first "concrete-steel composite arch bridge" in the U.S. Most concrete bridges have been built/reinforced with steel (rebar, usually) and have been for years...and I would think that concrete bridges with arches have been built before. However, I do recall hearing that it would be something like the largest or tallest bridge of this type (though I can't source that at the moment). --Ljthefro (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a "so-called concrete-steel composite arch bridge", an awkward piece of civil-engineering jargon, because all concrete-arch bridges are made of composities of steel & concrete.74.163.36.177 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there's a difference between "reinforced" and "composite". - Denimadept (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No - look up the phrase composite material and you will see. Composites are composed of two or more materials that are not chemically combined with each other. So, steel-reinforced concrete is a composite material, by definition.74.163.36.177 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is the first one to be built in the United States doesn't mean that they don't have extensive experience with them in places like Europe, Africa, China, South America, and so forth. In the United States and Japan, we have massive experience with steel bridges, and lots of steel available, and so we have had less reason to search for supposedly cheaper methods of construction.74.163.36.177 (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is called a composite bridge because it uses concrete construction in the arch and columns, where it is best suited for compression loads, and steel construction for the roadway deck, where the loads are more in tension and the system benefits from reduced weight and easier installation. -Tim D. (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important Naming Info[edit]

There have recently been some back and forth naming controversies in this article. This article is about and a direct result of the bridge, the bridge is a major component of the overall Hoover Dam Bypass Project. The project consists of an approach road on each side of the river and a bridge over the river. The official name of the bridge has been chosen and decided on by both the states of Nevada and Arizona and it is very offical and final. Please visit the official project website for any further clarifications on this issue. (Cygnusloop99 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I just took a look at that site, and I don't see the proper name there on a quick search. Can you point directly to it, please? - Denimadept (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look through this section, all of the more recent references refer to the bridge by the Mike-Pat name. They have never updated most of the site since day one but when they put up new stuff they use the new name. (Cygnusloop99 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Milestones better as table?[edit]

It looks to me as if the milestones would be better presented as a table, rather than a string of very short paragraphs. I'll wait for any comments before doing it... Mirokado (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. Cygnusloop99 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Done that. Mirokado (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The references will need to be completed for the good article review (and indeed anyway). I will do that over the weekend (6-7 Nov) unless someone else really wants to instead. Mirokado (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to update the references. First step was to move the definitions to the list. This means we can more easily edit the refs for consistency as they are all together and also makes the article text more readable while editing it since the ref tags are shorter. I prefer list-defined refs but if other editors want them moved back later, that can easily be done (by a "little script"). Mirokado (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing Illia & Cho (2009)[edit]

  • as written, the links did not work (incorrect id in the cite tag)
  • using raw html in the wiki source is not ideal
  • html cite tag by default renders all its contents italic: the Cite template defeats this but it is conceptually untidy
  • with a corrected id, the target was not highlighted as implemented by the standard mechanism
  • the references should refer to both authors, not just the first

All the above corrected by using the Harvard reference system support in the citation template family

  • no need for publisher information if ISSN is given, recommendation is to remove unused template parameters to avoid clutter

Tidied up the citation. – Mirokado (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic updates completed[edit]

I've now finished the systematic updates to the current references, although further work is still necessary. This took a lot longer than I had expected. Apart from any inexperience on my part it is clear that not enough effort has gone into providing reasonably complete references during the editing of this article (also by myself of course!) While I do not want to impose any manic tyranny, I expect subsequent references to be reasonably complete when added, and I will be prepared to remove newly-added or substantially updated material which lacks references as required for GA. If you do not have time to complete the references, leave the edit until you do have time. – Mirokado (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mike O'Callaghan – Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Imzadi 1979 → 21:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Many of the sections of the article feel like a recitation of statistics with no narrative story winding through the prose to bind the text together. Please have someone copy edit the article with an eye to producing a more cohesive whole.
    In the sentence: "Construction required hoisting workers and up to 50 tons of materials 890 feet (270 m) above the Colorado River using 2,300 ft (700 m)-long steel cables held aloft by a "high-line" crane system." the second measurement should be rendered using the adj=on parameter of {{convert}}, or hand-coded to read "2,300-foot (700 m)"
    The milestones table should be rewritten and converted to prose instead of a table. It probably should be integrated into the rest of the building section as part of the whole history.
    • I rather like the table in this case as it provides the reader with an accessible overview of what happened when, but I will not obstruct any changes which lead to attractive prose instead. The table replaced a series of one-per-milestone paragraphs which will definitely not be good enough. Perhaps we can try to write three or four paragraphs and embed a couple of the construction stage photos from the gallery. Mirokado (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Several supplied references have incomplete formatting. The references should have a consistent format, listing authors, titles, publishers, dates and access dates. Book, news paper, magazine and journal titles should be rendered in italics. Article and webpage titles should be rendered in quotation marks. Date formatting should be in the same format. Authors' names should be in the same format.
    Ref 5 is from the Arizona Republic newspaper by way of azcentral.com. (updated-Mk)
    Refs 6, 10, 16 are not the same source page, but the only information displayed in the citation is the same. (updated-Mk)
    Ref 8 is a broken link. (updated-Mk)
    What makes ref 12 a reliable source? Wouldn't a newspaper article be a better source of information for the cited fact? (updated-Mk)
    What makes ref 18 a reliable source? (updated-Mk)
    What makes ref 21 a reliable source? (updated-Mk)
    Why is there not a source provided for the sentence "In late 2004, the proposed bridge name honoring Mike O'Callaghan and Pat Tillman was announced at a ceremony by Nevada governor Kenny Guinn and Arizona governor Janet Napolitano." in the naming section.
    There are several whole paragraphs that are uncited, some with claims that need citation under the GA criteria. Things like "It is a key component of the proposed Interstate 11 project." need citation. A claim like "USA TODAY called it "America's Newest Wonder" on October 18, 2010" needs a citation. (The title of the newspaper should also be rendered correctly as USA Today as well.)
    • I will tidy up the references unless anyone else wants to instead, probably over the weekend 6/7 November. Mirokado (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Most systematic updates to the refs now complete, but no doubt further changes will be needed. See (updated-Mk) tags for specific resolved issues. Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Wikipedia isn't a business directory. I'm not sure that we need to know every company that was contracted for work on the bridge. The major firms in charge of the design and construction are sufficient unless they played a notable role in a news event.
    • Looking at Hoover Dam#Design, preparation and contracting quite a few firms are mentioned. Here we have the main contractor for each phase of the works which seems reasonable: certainly not all the subcontractors, although there are a couple of other mentions in connection with specific events. This article is the target for the Hoover Dam Bypass redirect, so despite the name it covers more than just the one bridge. Mirokado (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    There seems to be some reverting of additions to the article in the recent edit history, but I'm not sure if it rises to the level of edit warring since the reversions weren't reverted. This alone does not impact my overall opinion of the condition of the article's suitability agains the criteria however.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    File:Hoover Dam Bypass Plans 1.jpg has incorrect licensing. It is the position of the Wikimedia Foundation that consistent with applicable copyright law in the US that a slavish copy of a 2D artwork does not have any new copyright. The tags and information on the file description page indicate that the photographer of the poster released his work into the public domain. As a direct copy of a public domain work, his photograph is in the public domain by default and could not be "released".
    Please pare down the number of images in the article. Select the best images and run them as full-size thumb nails instead of using the image gallery. The rest can be included by using a separate Commons gallery
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This article is just not up to the standards expected of a Good Article. The copy editing needed to fix the criterion 1a issues can't be done without fixing the article to satisfy the criterion 3b issues. Some details need to be removed so that the rest of the story of this bridge can be woven together. Further research using better sources should be done. With a bridge of this importance in the region, there should be secondary sources available to cover every aspect of this structure completely. There should be no or very little need to resort to primary sources like http://www.hooverdambypass.org except for measurements and statistics on the bridge not included in the press articles. Please keep up the work on the article and renominate again when it's ready. Imzadi 1979 → 23:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional comments
  1. [{:File:Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge - 2010-07.jpg]] has been tagged as a copyright violation. The photo comes from a website (http://www.hooverdambypass.org) run by the lead contractors on the project, not the US government, which means that photo isn't in the public domain.
  2. There are missing measurement conversions.
  3. The link in ref 3 has gone dead. Additionally, ref 3 is a newspaper in Owosso, MI. Surely there are press sources closer to the area covering the bridge in greater detail. This should have been a big story in the Las Vegas Sun and the Arizona Republic. (updated-Mk)
  4. According to the link checker in the toolbox, the Yahoo! news link (ref 1) will be expiring soon.
  5. According to the disambiguation link checker in the toolbox, there is a disambiguation link for ADA in the article that should be changed to Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (updated-Mk)

I hope all of these comments help. Imzadi 1979 → 00:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this review. I have been updating over the weekend and have noted specific resolved issues with an (updated-Mk) tag above. Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge dimensions[edit]

I don't think we can accept a value of 890 feet for the height of the roadway above the river. The Bridge Facts plaque on the bridge itself states 880 feet and it going to be difficult to argue with that, but I have yet to find a "reliable" reference that states 880 feet. The current HDB-faq reference states "approx. 900 feet".

The same plaque also quotes the bridge length as 1905 feet, so we should try to find a good reference for that too.

I have also not yet found a reference for the value of 840 feet which appears in the article. That appears to refer to the height of the arch above the river, but we must remove this in the absence of a reference.

(You can see a photo of the plaque in this blog entry, but I imagine that will not be acceptable as a reference.) – Mirokado (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question - Why is information on listed on the plaque at the bridge not official? And if it is not than what is? Cygnusloop99 (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milestones moved into article text[edit]

I have moved the information from the milestones table into the article text, as recommended in the GA review. This provides better flexibility for placing pictures so I reorganised them at the same time. This was rather a lot for one edit, I appreciate, but there was no tidy intermediate stage. Criteria for the pictures were:

  • chronological order within the article text
  • illustrate the text alongside which they are embedded
  • each taken from a slightly different viewpoint
  • alternate right-left through the article

Comments and/or improvements welcome, of course. Mirokado (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maillart[edit]

What's for the wikilink ("see also") to Swiss architect Maillart and from him ("see also") to the bridge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.44.251 (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the link that's there? - Denimadept (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link was OK, but lacked context. I have updated the article a bit. --Mirokado (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Budget question[edit]

Who paid for the Construction cost? The article repeat the sum of $240 million for the project and $114 million for the bridge, but does not specify who funded the project. אביהו (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are full citations hidden?[edit]

Many links are dead now. However when I go to the section where the ref is and open it up to see if I can find an updated url for a newspaper article, it is a ref name only, ending with />. The ref is in the References list just once, for example Hansen October 9, 2010, which needs a new url and I found the article at the new one here. Where is the full cite hidden? I cannot mark dead link or update the link if I cannot find the full citation somewhere. What new thing must I learn to find the full citations? Thanks for any help. - - Prairieplant (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please give an example. - Denimadept (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see you did. I'm seeing the citation in the References section. - Denimadept (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_O%27Callaghan–Pat_Tillman_Memorial_Bridge&oldid=1209055829"