Wikipedia

Talk:Hell Gate Bridge/GA1

< Talk:Hell Gate Bridge
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Epicgenius in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 6 months ago43 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 19:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Hi there, I'll be undertaking this review. While the article appears to be in excellent shape, due to its length and being busier than normal with my day job it may take me up to 2 weeks to complete this review.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    Well done. I only found a few minor issues which have been resolved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    All good here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    A very intimidating total of 357 citations plus 4 notes, but everything looks kosher here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):  
    Article is extensively cited. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    C. It contains no original research:  
    No issues here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    Spot check showed no issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    I am satisfied the article is comprehensive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
    Good job keeping to summary style without neglecting any significant information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
    Having read through the entire article, I do not see any problems with neutrality. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
    Stable edit history for the past year. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    I've reviewed copyright status for all images. They are either public domain or appropriately licensed. No non-free media present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    I've left some suggestions below, but there's nothing at present that would cause the article to fail this criterion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Well done. I have left one final comment about the usage section but otherwise I believe this article meets that GA criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

Lead, infobox, images

  • I did some searching and found this photo on Commons (which was missing from the Hell Gate Bridge category, I've just added it) you may wish to add of a freight train on the bridge in the late 1940s, a time period where I think there's a gap in the photo coverage.
    • Nice find. The watermark is a bit intrusive, but I suppose it's the best pic from the era we have, since most of the other pics of the bridge are either from the 1900s/1910s, the late 20th century, or the 21st century. Epicgenius (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • You have in the infobox the bridge was constructed by American Bridge Inc. and fabricated by American Bridge Company. Are these different entities?
  • The bridge carries two tracks of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and one freight track between Astoria, Queens, to Port Morris, Bronx, via Randalls and Wards Islands. reread this for grammar, the words "between" and "to" don't really mesh the way you have them right now.
  • CSX and P&W should probably be wikilinked in the infobox, especially as they aren't mentioned in the lead at present.
  • I'm not going to mandate it, but images could use alt text where appropriate.
  • I recommend adding at least one aerial image of the bridge which shows it with the approaches on each side, such as this one. You've got many photos of the main span, but less attention is given to the approaches. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Development

  • Please include a link to car float in this section.
  • where car floats towed railroad cars the car floats carried railroad cars, the towing was done by tugboats.
  • Throughout the 1890s, the New York State Legislature considered various bills that would give the NYCR a franchise to construct a bridge from Long Island to the U.S. mainland, but to no avail. is there any more information available as to why the bills failed to pass at this point?
    • I'll take a look. I wanted to condense this for brevity, as there were several bills, and describing every one of them in detail would probably be unwieldy. On the other hand, I agree that it may make sense to mention why they didn't pass. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • The connecting railroad was to pay a fee to cross the East River. Pay a fee to whom? The RTC?
  • Consider a link to Boring (earth).
  • Among other things, the aldermen wanted the bridge to use electric power exclusively wanted trains on the bridge to use electric power, I presume?
  • and allow the city to add utility wires to the bridge should be rewritten as "and the city to be allowed to add utility wires to the bridge" or similar, so it doesn't conflict with the clause at the start of the sentence.
  • Consider adding inflation adjustments where dollar amounts are used.
  • while John A. Gray received a contract to take soil samples for the bridge the source is titled "New Bridge Work Let; Ready to Make Test Borings for East River Structures"." This is referring to soil borings (essentially drilling underground with a drill rig, taking soil samples, and investigating the depth and hardness of soil and rock) and should be linked to Geotechnical investigation. You could rework the sentence as "while John A. Gray received a contract to complete test borings for the bridge's foundation." I work as a geotechnical engineer so this is right in my wheelhouse, and I can totally see why you wrote the sentence the way you did, it's a pretty niche field.
  • Locomotive cranes can be linked to Crane (rail).

Operational history

  • During World War I, when the federal government took control of railroad lines in the U.S., the New York Central began using the Hell Gate Bridge,[150] allowing Long Island merchants to send products it looks like part of this sentence got cut off. There's no period and it sure looks like you meant to include more here.
  • In 1934, the NH put up its share of the bridge as collateral for a $6 million loan from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation might be worth adding the context that the New Haven was in financial trouble and ended up declaring bankruptcy the following year.
  • The NH faced financial shortfalls in the late 1960s point of order, the New Haven went bankrupt in 1961. This section also neglects to mention both the New Haven's absorption into Penn Central at the end of 1968, and Conrail's takeover of Penn Central in 1976.
  • Amtrak took over the bridge itself, and the passenger services that used it, in the 1970s can we be more specific? A lot of things changed in the 1970s. I think the transfer happened in 1976 but I don't remember for certain.
  • As part of Penn Station Access, in the 2020s, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) upgraded the Hell Gate Line to accommodate the Metro-North Railroad's New Haven Line; this required long-term interruptions to bridge traffic. is cited to a source from 2004. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Whoops. There was a little oversight there; I originally did have a source from 2023 there, but I am struggling to find it. I changed the first part of the sentence to use a source from 2022, and I removed the second half. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Description

  • Some terms could use wikilinks, including clear span, carbon steel, eyebar, and helper locomotive. I was disappointed to see nowhere on Wikipedia that mentions what bridge stringers are.
  • The decks of each span are all made of concrete panels, which carry track beds with ballast; this was intended to reduce noise pollution. Might be worth clarifying this is not normal for a railroad bridge.
  • The layer of rock under the Wards Island tower is substantially deeper, descending more than 100 feet (30 m), and sits atop a deep caisson foundation. Doesn't the foundation sit on the rock, not the other way around?
  • The western viaduct is very similar to those above Randalls and Wards Islands, but the piers of the use shallow foundations due to the presence of gravel and sand under the viaduct. Looks like either you added extra words or some words got cut off here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Oops, I have fixed the last two. I also added some links and tried to clarify what a stringer is. As for your second point, I've added this as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Usage

Impact

  • I did not observe any issues with this section.

Spot checks

I checked the following sources: "Facts of Longest Bridge in World", "Big Gang Laying Hell Gate R. R.", "The All-rail Plan Takes on New Life", "Greatest of All Railroad Bridges at Hell Gate a Link in New England-Western Railroad Route", and "Great Hell Gate Bridge Triumph of Engineering". My checks have found the article to be consistent with the checked sources without any close paraphrasing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hell_Gate_Bridge/GA1&oldid=1223428235"