Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [1].

---

Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3

Nominator(s): Ruhrfisch _><>°^°

I am nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. It had a very helpful peer review (thanks to Finetooth and Dincher). Several covered bridge Featured Articles served as models, and it was started to remove a red link in the FA Sonestown Covered Bridge, as both were victims of the same flood in 1996. Sadly, this bridge was destroyed then and is no longer extant. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is included in the Historic American Engineering Record. Thanks in advance for any input, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Well done as always. I made a few minor edits, but there wasn't much to tweak. Good job Ruhrfisch. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support, kind words, and edits. I used to use too many parentheses, now I will have to work on verb plus -ing constructions. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support All concerns were taken care of in PR. Excellent work once again. --Dincher (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support, kind words, and peer review, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Image review — of the six images, five all are "free" with verifiable information and okay. I am on the fence with the non-free image, File:Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3 Summer.jpg. Personally, it is of the same appearance as File:Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3, photo 1, Crop.jpg; hence, the intactness and season rationales are not too convincing. However, it has the human figure, which could fulfill the scale of representation rationale. Jappalang (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and for fixing the LOC tags on the free images. I would appreciate input on the fair use image from any others who have reviewed this (and I will ask the two editors who have already weighed in what they think of the image to try and get consensus).

The fair use image was taken by PennDOT, apparently in 1982, expressly for potential submission to the NRHP. See page 16 (of 47) in the PDF for the Muliple Property Submission here: "During 1982 personnel from each of Penn DOT's eleven engineering districts were trained and dispatched to photograph and gather basic structural data for each of the 1,635 bridges." The question is does this make it a work for the federal (US) government, and thus free / public domain? I also note that the photo is the only one I have found of the intact bridge (pre-flood damage), and is only available at no cost when requested from the National Park Service (they even pay the postage). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Of concern to me is purpose statement number 3, which states: "in summer (all other images were taken in January)". What does season have to do with the bridge's appearance? Intactness is also not a factor here, as that is covered by the free image. So we have to evaluate the strength of the "size-and-scale argument". The image is used in the "Description and construction" section. A description section provides the reader with knowledge of the bridge's appearance (of course). A well-written description section (which it is) will give the reader a mental image of the bridge (rhyme not intended), but words can only say so much. Measurements are hard to visualize for most readers. They need a visual and comparison. While the free image provides a visual, the non-free image provides a comparison with the visual so that the reader can better understand how big the bridge really is. Therefore, I believe that the non-free image's usage is warranted. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to point out ways in which the fair-use image differed from the free image(s). I agree the season itself is not that applicable to a fair use rationale, but do note there are plants (ivy?) growing on the stones on the left side of the bridge in the fair use image which are not visible in the free image. As for the intact state shown in the fair use image, a comparison of the fair use and lead free images does allow one to see the cracks caused by the flooding more clearly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail this morning to Kara Russell, an architectural historian at PennDot, to ask about the copyright status of the historic bridge collection. Here is her entire response:

"They are in the public domain--you are free to use them. However, the collection from the bridge survey is not on-line as the collection is too large. If you would like the photo of a particular bridge and it is not available to you otherwise (through the National Park Service, etc.) please let me know and I can may be able to email you one (depending upon whether or not it was photographed as part of the historic bridge survey). Kara Russell [,] PennDOT Bureau of Design [,] Environmental Quality Assurance Division"

I believe this solves the problem except for changing the licensing information. I'm not sure how that is done when an e-mail like this is the confirming document. Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it OTRS or something like that? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much Finetooth! Ms. Russell should send an email to the address shown in Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission, specifying the license. It would be a great help if she mentioned this applies to photos of all 135 "Highway Bridges Owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation" here. My guess is other bridges (at least some covered bridges have been surveyed by PennDOT) would also be covered. Then all these photos would be covered under the same Wikipedia:OTRS ticket. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an OTRS matter because PD due to Federal government work does not cover the work done by individual states. Jappalang (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have sent a second e-mail to Ms. Russell along the lines suggested by Ruhrfisch. I think it's too late in the day to expect a response at least until tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

She kindly sent permission today by e-mail to the Wikipedia photo submissions address to use any bridge photo owned by PennDOT in any Wikipedia article. This includes the photo in question here. She said, "These images are considered by the Commonwealth/PennDOT to be in the public domain." I'm still quite murky on how the OTRS process works, how long it takes, or what happens next. Finetooth (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Evnetually OTRS will add a ticket to the image - see File:Aurora inn wayside.png as one example. I am also not sure how long it takes. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that it might help to add an OTRS pending tag to the image description page. See WP:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed. Finetooth (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I had already added the OTRS pending tag to the file here on Wikipedia, but will upload it to Commons and delete it here per the link above next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Since it is not the uploader who owns the picture, commons:Template:PD-author or commons:Template:PD-copyright holder would be more appropriate in this case. I think the copyright holder template is more appropriate since it is the department and not the photographer who is authorizing the release. Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jappalang, I have made the license change. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the OTRS? It is taking quite a long time... Jappalang (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Russell at PennDOT sent an email to OTRS but the address had a typo in it and it is not in the OTRS system. I contacted her again, but she is now on leave until early June. I have emailed another person in the same department, but yesterday was a holiday (President's Day) so the state offices in Pennsylvania were closed. I hope to hear back from the other person today. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OTRS verified, all images in this article are verifiably "free"! No issues. Jappalang (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the images and for your patience, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support and a few comments from one not initiated into the great mysteries of US English:

The bridge is at the mouth of Coal Mine Hollow" - I see from Wiktionary that a hollow in this case is probably a kind of valley, not a shallow depression, which would not have a mouth.

I linked Hollow to Valley#Hollows, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The tannery employed "several hundred" - better as "employed "several hundred" workers"?

Maybe I don't see something, but I think "workers" would be redundant. Employees (conveyed in this sense as "employed") are workers. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the word workers - this is an international encyclopedia and we want our articles to be as comprehensible as possible. Thanks for pointing this out, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

" These employees lived in 120 company houses, which each rented for $2 a month". I think you mean that the houses each cost $2 a month to rent - the existing phrase is definitely not GB English, in which the phrase clumsily implies the workers each paid $2.

Ichanged the sentence to These employees lived in 120 company houses, which each cost $2 a month to rent. - hopefully this is clearer. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

" in and near Williamsport killed six and caused millions of dollars in damage." In the UK "killed six" would be journalese and per the above should read "killed six people" or similar in a respectable publication.

I have added the word people - 20 people were killed in the flooding statewide (but this seems too tangential to include in the article). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

" municipal- or state-owned bridges" doubtless Finetooth has some obscure reason for the first hyphen , but it looks wrong to me.

Suspended hyphen. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Dabomb87 for the link - this is indeed how it is meant. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, it is a matter of considerable national shame that our superior Scottish bridges have such inferior articles, and you are welcome to visit them at any time to effect improvements. Ben MacDui 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be proud of the fact that your old stone arch bridges are still standing (although Pennsylvania has one still standing and in use from 1697). Thanks for your support, careful reading and helpful comments, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I made a few edits, please feel free to revert them if they are not an improvement. Please check to see if a simple past tense "was" and "were" can replace "had been" without spoiling the meaning. Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, edits, and kind words. I made one change in your edits, about the 1918 repairs. I restored it to The bridge had needed repairs and reconstruction. from The bridge needed repairs and reconstruction. to make it clearer the repairs were actually done. If there is a better way to say this, please tweak away. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both Ealdgyth for checking refs and links, and to Dabomb87 for fixing the newspaper refs. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support This is another excellent article in a continuing series about Pennsylvania bridges. Small concerns that I voiced during peer review have been addressed. I believe the remaining image question has been resolved by the transformation from fair use to free use and the addition of PD and OTRS-pending tags to the image description page at the Commons. Finetooth (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support, peer review, edits, help with the image, and kind words, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support and nitpicks A strong candidate, but a few hairsplits that you may wish to ignore. jimfbleak (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3, looking north-northwest - caption should not repeat name, especially as repeated immediately below, what about View from southeast or similar?
  • I did not know the MOS said not to repeat article names in captions, thanks. I have changed the caption to View from southeast in January 1996, with flood damage - is this better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Location of Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3 in Pennsylvania - as above, perhaps Location within Pennsylvania
  • I also did not know this - changed to your suggestion. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Although it was repaired after a major flood in 1918, a record flood on January 21, 1996, severely damaged the bridge - not sure about although, given the time elapsed, is there a relevant connection (very picky - no need to do anything if you're happy)
  • The problem with the lead is always trying to say things as succinctly as possible. My intent was to contrast the 1918 flood damage (which is also described as cracking the bridge, but was repaired) with the 1996 flood damage (which cracked the bridge and led to its demolition). I may be revealing my POV here (I am sad the bridge was destroyed). If others think this is POV, I will change it. I am also open to other ways to draw the contrast in the lead. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• relieving Plunketts Creek Township and Lycoming County of the responsibility - perhaps its responsibility? (as above, no need to do anything if you're happy)
  • While the township is part of the county, they are separate legal entities, so I think this is a plural subject and "its responsibility" is singular. Would "their responsibility" be better? This sentence has given me more trouble than almost any other in the article and has been tweaked by others several times too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Second growth forest in the 20th century section is a redirect.
  • Good catch - fixed now, thanks! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, careful reading, helpful comments, and kind words, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: I missed this at Peer Review so this has been my first reading. In general the article has the qualities of the other bridge articles, carefully prepared, scrupulously referenced and immaculately illustrated. However, I have a slight problem with one aspect of the article—the possible overdetailing on matters not directly related to the subject.

Specifically, the last paragraph of the Villages and Road section gives an interesting account of the Proctor tannery, but the bridge is not mentioned. Then, in the following section, the second paragraph discusses the decline of the villages, but again the bridge doesn't appear. Can these paragraphs be adjusted in some way, so that we don't forget that the central focus of this article is the bridge? I would have made this point at peer review, had I reached the article there.

• Thanks for pointing this out. Because of the mountainous terrain, the main road to Proctor is the one that comes north from Barbours and crosses the bridge (though there are other, more roundabout ways to get there) and anyone going from one village to the other would have to take the same road and cross the bridge as well. This is why PennDOT was so quick to put up a temporary bridge. So the finished leather leaving the tannery all crossed the bridge going south, and all of the green hides (and some portion of the hemlock bark) coming in would have crossed it too. I have a source on the leather and hides being transported on the road (and thus on the bridge). With the decline in the villages, traffic also declined. I will work on a way to say this. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I added mention of the bridge to three paragraphs (the one on the founding of Proctor also did not mention it specifically). The tannery paragraph was rearranged quite a lot in the process, I hope it is still clearly written. I also found on rereading sources that although the tannery and Proctorville were founded in 1868, the tannery was only completed in 1873 and so added this to the article too. Here is the diff. Thanks again for catching this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, a very minor point, both "Native American" and "settler" appear to be linked on their second rather than first mention. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have fixed both of these - thanks for catching them. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all of the points you raised - thanks again for your support, careful reading, helpful comments, and kind words, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Meets WP:WIAFA. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support, edits, and kind words, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Note - I just spent the last half hour searching for the OTRS permission ticket for photo #3. I couldn't find it. More information (such as the email address it came from) is necessary. (I'm going on vacation for the next week so someone else will have to tag the pic) Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• There was a typo in the email address used. I have requested a new email be sent and will ask another OTRS volunteer to help once I know the email has been sent. Thanks again and enjoy your time off, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: I think I'm right at the end of the support line here, but I haven't had an earlier chance to read it properly. I have no issues which bear on the FA criteria. Another soothing instalment from the Pennsylvania backwoods; keep them coming. Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and continued support - I am glad the changes I made after your initial comments met with your approval. Just an update, I still am waiting to hear back on the resent email for the photo permission. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I appear inadvertently to have registered my support twice - enthusiasm indeed!. Sorry about that, I must be doing too many peer reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling - I was bold and struck the second support to make counting easier. I have learned that the person who originally gave permission for the PennDOT photo is on leave until June and am contacting someone else. State offices are closed today for the President's Day holiday. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OTRS update My thanks to Kara Russell of PennDOT, who (re)sent an email to the photo permissions just over three hours ago. I am not sure how long it takes to get into the system, but it has been sent (and I have a copy if need be). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OTRS confirmation on the image = Done. See [2] for further info. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt! I believe that all issues with this FAC have now been resolved. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.