Talk:Brooklyn Bridge/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Probably just going to list comments in the order I find them; main editors are good and responsive :) Kingsif (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Infobox looks a bit wide; seems to match other NYC architecture articles, though
  • Infobox content good
• Lead perhaps a bit short for article, will add comments on its coverage below

  Thanks for the initial comments - I expanded the lead. epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• From just scrolling, there's a lot of images
  • Though the panoramas at the bottom felt cumbersome on a scroll, they are useful for coverage and illustration (show entire bridge + skyline), especially for such an important subject (level 4 vital)
• Interesting use of the destinations table. Nice idea.
• Refs consistent
• Seems stable, little bit of IP vandalism but nothing that hasn't been instantly undone - plenty IPs working productively on it, too. No causes for concern.
• No evident copyvio
• I don't think bridge needs to be wikilinked. At least, I hope not.
• Yes, on coverage I think there's more the lead could cover.

• Is the length of the bridge known as 'deck'? I'm learning many things today! This is good and image useful.

  Yes, that would be the actual length of the bridge (as opposed to the cables or the towers). I'm trying to be as understandable while being accurate & detailed as well. epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've removed a few commas (may edit some more, you'll see the edit reasons) - if this is against the style guide you're using, please undo
• The three sentences about aerodynamics could be better connected, I'll leave you to work on that
  • "by its nature" should generally always be surrounding by punctuation - here, a comma either side (again, though, please defer to your style guide - that goes for all these such comments)
  • The clause about Roebling could be separated from its sentence, it makes it run on and goes into another main point.
    • And then connect it to the next sentence. (Sorry if these sound very instructor-y)

      All done. epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• No need to repeat link to truss

  Removed. epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• So far, well-written, nice tone
• Ooh, is there a close picture of the trusses that could go here? But it's still good if you don't want to put one in, the approach ramp is good coverage for this whole part and it's on the line of image overload already
• short ton could get a wikilink (I assume its in the convert template?)
• The part reading a design consideration from the bridge's early years when it carried heavy elevated trains suggests that before the Brooklyn Bridge there was already a bridge that carried trains - I'm not sure if that makes sense? I think it could be rewritten to establish that the design consideration wasn't a leftover of a previous project, but made for the bridge in order to carry the trains (still in the future at that point), even though it no longer does.
  • I also think this could be bumped up - the trusses have already been given a lot of coverage, but this was the reason for them, it should come first (or as early as permitted to maintain flow, i.e. at the start of this paragraph.

    It is actually because the Brooklyn Bridge itself carried elevated trains (covered later on). I reworded it, and moved it to earlier. epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

    • Yes, I read on and had worked that out - just a little confusing, thanks for reworking it :) Kingsif (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Repetition of "roadways" in a sentence; second instance (18 feet (5.5 m) above the height of the roadways) could be changed to 'them'

  Done.

• The next sentence could be split in two - between "...tower, where...", changing "where" to 'Here,'

  Done.

• I feel the Approach part should go above the Suspension span one. A difficult view, since the short Deck introduction mentions both approaches and the length, but I'm swung by the fact you get onto the bridge via an approach :)

  Well... the side spans are first mentioned in "Suspension span". The side spans are the sections between the towers and the anchorage, and the approaches are the ramps that lead up to the anchorage. If I do this, then the section will be out of order. Also, it's pretty common for bridges to have approaches, since most of NYC's shoreline is located close to the sea level (as opposed to on a cliff, like the George Washington Bridge). epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  • That's alright then, leave as is. Kingsif (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• arch bridge and girder bridge could be wikilinked

  Done.

• Any chance the Cables image could be set to the right? No bother if you like it on the left, though

  Done - seems like enough room on the right. epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• galvanized steel is used both hyphenated and not - pick one for consistency, I think both are correct so it doesn't matter which

  Done - hyphenated epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• I guess "stay" is some jargon that needs to be linked, too, probably with a brief explanation on their function here

  It's really just a diagonal cable. Added Wiktionary link. epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• So, it describes the kind of rock the anchorages are on, but I still can't tell if they're in the river or not - could this be outright stated?

  They are inland. I'll try to add a picture or something. epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Nice, but be careful to not have too many images! Kingsif (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Is an anchor plate a special thing with a wikilink? Or just a kind of plate that anchors?

  Added wikilink. epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm assuming the anchor bars referred to are the eyebars just mentioned, but by a different name? Could continue using the first specialist term so as to not confuse the reader, if this is the case. If not the same thing, then this part is harder to follow

  Yes, but let me check this tomorrow. I agree that this contains a bit of jargon. epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Very jargon-heavy part on anchor-things that may benefit from a re-write. It doesn't seem too bad, though
• The sentence on anchor bars being a 90 degree curve can be condensed I think, it reads like it assumes I don't know what 90 degrees is. I'm sure you can come up with a solution here.

  McCullough (1972) has an illustration of these, but it's not public domain. epicgenius (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Why were the anchorage vaults always at 60F?

  The air was not exposed to the outside world - it was tightly sealed. epicgenius (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly, why weren't they used in WW1? Seems like the perfect hideout, no?

  I clarified to say this was closed to the public. epicgenius (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Can I just say I'm glad you haven't said the Rosendale cement was from Rosendale.
• Not sure you need to say the Manhattan tower has more masonry, can just include the figures (I note this because the way it's currently phrased may trick a skim-reader/someone not so good with commas into thinking that the Manhattan tower has 46,945 cubic yards more masonry on top of what the Brooklyn tower has!)

  Done.

• Could this image at Towers replace the infobox one? It's basically the same view, but this one looks better IMO

  Done.

• There's three sentences just giving a different measurement of the arches. It's hard to create a picture and relate the lengths to each other if they're not connected. And, even if it were giving other stats, the prose could be better anyway (i.e. the sentences all follow the same format, it quickly gets monotonous). Some work could be done to improve this, but it's not a major concern.

  There are two different measurements: arch and towers. I combined the arch measurements into one sentence, and clarified the tower measurement. epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• May need to note why the caissons needed protection (yes, they're underwater, it seems obvious, but still)

  Done.

• Could just say "8 feet at both the bottom and the top"?

  Done.

• wikilink dredging?

  Done.

• In the lovely description of the caisson (I do love it), you could add that they are for humans to be in (not bridge supports, as I wrongly assumed until I read airlock).

  Done. I appreciate it - I really am trying to get the description as understandable as possible

  • Also, are caissons always made of southern yellow pine? If not, this needs to be separated a bit to not give that impression.

    Added a comma. epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm also not entirely sure why "upside-down" is included? (Though it's funny and I like it) Are boxes usually open at the bottom and not top?

    The caissons were open at the bottom and closed at the top. When I hear the word "boxes", I think of something that's open at the top and closed at the bottom. Other interpretations may vary, though. epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, on sources again a bit - there's a title with some ALLCAPS that could be less shouty :)

  Structure magazine? I fixed that now. epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Is the 1867 plan image related to the video in the same box? If not, these could be separated.

  Separated these.

• Are you using "letter to the editor" as a noun phrase (i.e. letter to the editor) or not? (If yes, the "to the editor" may have to be repeated, so maybe just say no) (Why did I even ask?)

  I guess so. What else could it be? (Seriously, I don't know, this was the wording that existed before I added the content.) epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Repetition of "providing" - this sentence is a bit rambling and could maybe be tweaked.

  Reworded the entire sentence.

• To what is "cumbersome" referring to in the sentence on criticism? It's a bit weasel-y for where it is.

  Fixed.

• In the June 1869 sentence, maybe say "conducting these surveys", to connect to the last part more?

  Done.

• I'd combine or otherwise better connect the sentences on Roebling 2 and and Tweed.

  Done.

• Kingsif (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• In the bit about sinking the caisson, what's brick piers?

  The upright kind (as opposed to the maritime kind). epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  • That is giving me even more questions. Like Pier (architecture)? Kingsif (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

    • Yes, exactly that. epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure turnover needs a wikilink, but it's alright if it's kept
• Could Despite the high turnover rate, only a few workers were paralyzed. be tweaked a little, because high turnover has just been mentioned in a "because of" sense

  Done.

• Maybe link kilo Pascals at the air pressure part? I don't think it's a common unit

  Done.

• It sounds like Emily was important so I would probably move her first mention further up, maybe to where Washington is first introduced? Like, add on the end of the bit about him and Tweed saying that Washington quickly became injured and so Emily took his place on-site or something like it (and accurate)

  Let me think about this one. If I move Emily's first mention upward, then I will have to mention Washington's injury twice, since she was hired after he became ill. epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Were the masonry blocks lifted by pulley or timber tracks? Some combination of both?

  Clarified that part. epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Good up to cable spinning Kingsif (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• In the second sentence of Cable spinning, "wire" is used - I assume this is referring to the temporary rope, but because wire/rope aren't usually compatible it confuses a bit

  Done.

• is there a wikilink for boatswain's chair?

  Actually, there is. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• commas around Farrington's name

  Done.

• why was an engineer sent across the rope?

  To ensure that the rope was safe enough to hold up the temporary footbridge (mentioned later on). epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• swap the refs next to Abram Hewitt, numerical order

  Done.

• Hmm, from my understanding now, it seems that the temporary ropes were not laying tracks for the future cables, but just to create a workers'/public bridge, is this right? If so, this should be made clear at the start of the cable spinning subsection

  Done.

• I think the use of "quietly" in The contract for the remaining wire was quietly awarded to the John A. Roebling's Sons company, and by October 5, 1878, the last of the main cables' wires went over the river is unnecessary and may be inappropriate, especially not quoted and attributed

  Done - I meant that it was not a public affair. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not objected that is quite correct - "objected because they thought..." perhaps? Or another form you come up with

  Replaced with "argued".

• last sentence of the Cable spinning subsection doesn't need "ultimately" (has a date), nor does it need "in fact".
• Re this paragraph, is this the best place for it?

  Done. I think this is where the sentence would be most consistent with the context before it. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• In Nearing completion subsection there's another "Ultimately" that should go (just "In July 1879" is better)

  Done.

• Do you know what kind of steel was being used for this part?

  Bessemer steel.

• Why did the contract date change?

  Delays, supposedly. The iron works were forced to explain themselves later on, and blamed it on another company. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Why did Washington leave? (And "fled" may be POV language)

  I don't really know the answers to any of these questions (the source doesn't really say). Back then, there was a lot of dodgy stuff going on with little explanation. I changed "fled" to "gone". epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Would it not be better to say which newspapers called for his removal; unless it was all except the two named, which should be made explicit

  Yeah, it was the latter.

• Question on the word "chords" - is it supposed to say 'cords', or is it another specialist term?

  I think they are synonyms. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure (and in fact rarely visited the site again) needs the 'in fact'

  Removed.

• Using both "US$" before, and "dollars" after, is redundant

  Removed "dollars".

• In Since the New York and Brooklyn Bridge was the only one across the East River, "only one" would be better as 'only bridge' - the use of Bridge before it is a proper noun

  Done.

• "50% longer" may be harder to visualize than a phrasing like '1.5 times'

  Converted to fraction

• Saying failed to find negligence kind of sounds like the article was expecting or wanting one to find negligence, could be rephrased as simple "did not find"

  Well, these were negligence lawsuits. I rephrased it. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Are there any pictures of the elephants?

  Not that I know of. Closest i could find is this. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• What were the free crossings mentioned in Late 19th...? Pedestrians?

  Yes.

• Were the cable car and trolley different things?
  • Could link 'trolley' for readers outside N. America

    They were different. The cable cars were pulled by cables and were limited to the bridge. Trolleys could travel onto city streets as well. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• are there details on the official naming in 1915 - did someone push a bill, for example?

  Yeah, it was an aldermanic bill. I added that detail epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• On the bit about Grover Whalen, it says the reason was said to be to reduce traffic, but the real reason was an incident caused by too much traffic... these sound like pretty much the same thing, though I expect there's nuance. Are there more details that could explain better?

  The first statement means to reduce traffic to remove congestion on city streets. The second statement means to remove traffic because the bridge couldn't handle the weight. I have added that now. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• rehabilitation project sounds like rehab, other options are 'reconstruction', or one of the other 're-' words already used in the paragraph (maybe renovation, to prevent repetition in this sentence)
  • Other instances of "rehabilitation" should also be considered

    I'm not sure what is wrong with "rehabilitation". In engineering, it's synonymous with a renovation. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• The little paragraph about the Cold War needs reworking. I think you'll be good to just work on it, but if you want more thoughts, just ask :)

  Thanks, I have reworded it. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• wikilink Atlantic Avenue at first mention; do any of the other streets in this paragraph have articles to link that aren't already done above?

  I think that is all. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think that the towers were cleaned in 1958 needs the "Afterward" before it (if this is removed, the comma after 1958 wouldn't be needed, either)

  Done.

• Can replace "the bridge's" in A repainting of the bridge was announced two years later in advance of the bridge's 90th anniversary with 'its'

  Done.

• "starting in 1982" could be bracketed by commas, but not needed

  Done.

• Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• I like the new towers image :)
• The "However" in However, due to the weight restrictions, passenger vehicles... is inappropriate - it's continuing the point just made.

  Done.

• If the Park Row access has been closed since 9/11 (in the diagram), then the previous paragraph needs to say it was closed, and I'd expect a mention of this in the 21st century history subsection

  Done.

• Is "elevateds" a real word?

  In the context of NYC transit, yes, it is. An abbreviation would be "els". This is the plural for "elevated railway". epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• I was initially confused by At the same time, there were highly controversial plans to extend the elevated railroads onto the Brooklyn Bridge because the paragraph up to then is about cable cars on the bridge - more distinguishing between the existing cable cars and controversial elevated train tracks needs to happen

  The second paragraph mentions the elevated trains, which started in 1898; this is in the same paragraph as cable cars. I have split that paragraph. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• The last sentence of this paragraph does not need "ultimately"

  Done.

• How did the elevated trains swap out steam engines for cable cars during their route?

  The steam engines were uncoupled from the passenger carriages, and the cable cars were coupled to the passenger carriages. Or vice versa. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• At one point, there were also plans for Brooklyn Bridge trains to run underground doesn't need "also"

  Done.

• I'm not sure what including "on the left sides of the roadways" adds, it could be removed

  Done. The word "center" can be ambiguous, it may also refer to the "center of the roadway". epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• takes on a special importance in times of difficulty could be more simply/neutrally worded, I think

  Done.

• Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Don't need "Additionally" at the Devaux sentence.

  Removed.

• Does muslim need a capital 'M' (29 Palestinian Muslims)?

  Yes, because it's a proper noun, like "Jews" or "Christians". My spellcheck flags lowercase "m" Muslim as incorrect. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Question: is "performance atop their bridge. At the peak of their collective ascents, bright yellow smoke flares were ignited on each bridge, unifying the artists as a team," one continuous quote? If so, can it be ... cut up and restated?
• I've added a "received" to correct the grammar/structure of the list the event was on the cover of the New York Post, received international attention, and received ABC's Eyewitness News 1977 Best News of the Year award, but if you can think of a better way to rephrase the whole sentence I think that would improve it

  I actually did not add that paragraph, so I have gone ahead and rephrased it. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• There are arrests mentioned in the stunts and (obviously) crime subsections, so I see no reason to have the word in the section header only for Art and arrests (i.e. why not "Stunts and arrests" - because they're arrested for the stunt, like they're arrested for the art).
  • On a related note, given the nature of the art covered in the subsection, perhaps Performance art would be the best heading - to not suggest there's a gallery along the towers or something

    One of the two incidents (the 2014 flag incident) wasn't art, but more of a stunt. So you were correct at first. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think '50 year anniversary' is more common than semi-centennial
  • This also gets rid of the need for "celebrations", which currently leads to awkward repetition

    Done.

• Is there a better adjective to replace "celebratory" in celebratory banquet (redundancy with both "celebrated" and "banquet" - a banquet is celebratory by nature)

  I simply removed "celebratory". epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• For the next paragraph, I'm not sure is "centennial" or 'centenary' is more correct

  Depends on the dialect. In NYC "centennial" is more common. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• In the first sentence of Impact, I think it would be more Wikipedia style to bring "At the time of construction" to the start of the sentence.

  Done.

• If the Manhattan anchorage's location is so historically significant, could this not be mentioned up where the anchorage construction part is?
  • And if this plaque is about the site of the house, rather than the bridge, this should be mentioned (and the plaque then given only brief coverage at this article)

    It's more about the house, so I've trimmed it, and kept the paragraph in place. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Is the example "If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you." mentioned in the source?

  No, not that exact quote. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• The Cultural significance section could be structured better, including with some introduction/contextualizing/connectives for the different paragraphs; it's quite a disjointed list at the moment, though the paragraphs themselves are generally well-written
  • The background of love locks concept is unnecessary; wikilink will do, especially since there's a good image present

    I have done that. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Neither the Gleizes artwork, nor any artwork representing the bridge, are mentioned; the inclusion of this image seems unusual

  Removed this image too. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Is Cultural significance the best heading for this section? The planning documents seems to lend itself to this title, but the social idiom and (global) love locks concept don't.
• Yes, I'm not sure what to do with this subsection, but I feel something definitely needs to be done with it. Perhaps re-title to "In culture", work on the structure, and we can see from there

  I'll think about it. Thanks for the comments. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• on hold I think that's all! Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A lot of work's been done and your responses have been great - I'll leave this open if you're still working on some things, but ping me when you're satisfied and it'll probably be good to go then :) Kingsif (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I think I am almost done, but now Wikiuser100 is going through the article making changes. I want to know if (1) these changes need to be discussed, or (2) if there are any new issues that need to be fixed now. epicgenius (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Whoah, here, Epic! I had no idea this article is undergoing a GA review - and there is no way for an editor to tell. Slap a proper template on it if you don't want anyone making legitimate edits.
      • That said, every one I have made is sound. I am going to go back and delete that one citing a 1924 newspaper for the different bridge heights of MLW because I read the thing and it does not say what it is cited to support.
      • Please let me know what other edits I have been made were reverted then restored, as I do not have a fraction your technical skills in picking which versions to revert to or restore from; I have to do them all by hand and dint of hard work, and do not wish to put any more into it than is necessary. Other than all this, nice to see you. Let's work together to get what I have done sorted out, as we have on so many other articles, and I'll ditch off the page as soon as that is done. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
        • @Wikiuser100: Sorry, I didn't intend that in a mean way. I would have placed the {{under construction}} template, but didn't see it as necessary. I was confused about the changes you made, so I just wanted Kingsif's opinion about whether anything significant needed to be added. But by their comment below, I don't think anything major needs to be done.
        • As for the deleted reference, the source indeed does say that the bridge is slightly shorter in winter, so I added the quotation saying so. Though the newspaper does not say the extent to which the bridge is smaller. epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Hi there! The reassessment tag is prominent on the talk page, but you would've had to look there :) @Epicgenius and Wikiuser100: I've looked through, made a tweak or two, but most edits look good. However, I can't fully sift through all the changes to the "Opening" section (looks like a move + add, but the history is a bit messy in this part). Tell me when you're satisfied! Kingsif (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This is weird. I posted a response here to Epic and User:Kingsif, saw it under Preview, hit Save, and...it's disappeared. Meanwhile, I responded to an Alert ping at the top of the page and ended up back here, with Kingsif's post alone showing. Oh, well.

The bottom line is that I don't want to be here, or doing any of this. I want to go away, and will, as soon as I'm satisfied any legitimate edits I made have been restored, or improved upon, not simply reverted (or disimproved). I didn't make any edits to the Opening section, so that should not be an issue. Let's work together to clean this up so you can get back to what you are doing and so can I. Somewhere else.  :) Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiuser100: Again, I'm not intending to dispute your edits. I simply wanted to ensure that the article is still good to go - that's all. But since you made 15 edits to the page in the meantime, it's hard to distinguish which of those were major or minor edits. Anyway, other than the issue of the reference, your other edits look fine. epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Kingsif, I think all of the issues have been replied to now. Most have been resolved, but the rest have an appropriate answer in regards to why that suggestion was not implemented. I renamed the culture and media sections, so looks all good epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• • Cool, then I support this as a GA now - I'll update the talk page template. And don't forget to put back any of Wikiuser100's good edits that aren't in the article ! Nice work, again :) Kingsif (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

    Kingsif, thanks. I didn't revert any of Wikiuser100's other edits except for the reference, just to be clear. I reverted to the last revision to restore the reference, because of the high number of edits being made during the period, but then immediately undid my own edit except for the reference removal. epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's where you can run rings around me, EG, as I don't know how to do that stuff. Not in any sophisticated manner. I have to go back edit by edit, revert by revert, and sift it all out. Hate it.

You seem like good guys, I know EG is, and nobody meant any harm, so I'm not going to go back and nitpick things. I was only ever at the page by accident, inertia, starting with how Williamsburg, Virginia got named that, with a Germanic "burg" at the end, and not "Williamstown", the English equivalent (a crooked story appearing to trace to William, though English king at the time of the town named in his honor's settlement, being a native Netherlander, William of Orange, yada-yada). That led to the Williamsburg on Manhattan (with a completely different etymology) and a mislabeled image of the Williamsburg Bridge, and the next thing you know I'm at the BB.

As for that cite, I'm still not happy with it being back in. I happen to know a great deal about bridges, bridge clearance, and Mean High Water and how it is measured (being a tidal datum established by NOAA reflecting the average of all the high water heights observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch, itself being based on an 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle, and something I have a professional understanding of, having helped gather data for measurements based on it with professional surveyors, advised expert witnesses, drafted material for legal counsel, and given legislative testimony for permits and hearings involving it). As I indicated, that 1924 article makes a claim, provides no support for it, cites no science or scientists. We all know metal contracts when it gets cold. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've gone and removed the Daily News ref, since it seems more troublesome than not to include it. epicgenius (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Epic. I spent a fair bit of time looking for any sound reference that would address the issue, at the Coast Guard site and using Google, as temperature affects all bridges (which typically have expansion joints allowing for horizontal slippage to accommodate lateral changes). No luck. If I find anything I'll let you know. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)