Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge

Article title

Is there a reason that the article title is I-35W Mississippi River bridge and not ... River Bridge with bridge's b being a capital letter? articles like the golden gate bridge and even the I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge which replaced the Mississippi river bridge have all caps. I just wanted to know if there was a reason of if we should change it --210.157.252.242 (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it had a name, as such, prior to the collapse. It probably had an ID number, but that seems like needless detail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be called Interstate 35W Mississippi River Bridge instead of the I-35W, as most bridges say Interstate instead. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly a redirect from one to the other could be done. You start to get into the "common names" issue here. Very few news reports would have said "Interstate" repeatedly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I know many news organizations referred to it as the I-35W Bridge JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Links to a particular engineering firm twice within the article (advertising)

This firm seems to be advertising their services at least twice within this article pretty blatantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.212.172 (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Image-I35W Collapse - Day 4 - Operations & Scene (95) edit.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Image-I35W Collapse - Day 4 - Operations & Scene (95) edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 1, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-08-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The I-35W Mississippi River bridge was an eight-lane, steel truss arch bridge that carried Interstate 35W across the Saint Anthony Falls of the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Once the third-busiest bridge in the state, it suddenly collapsed on August 1, 2007, killing 13 and injuring 145. Rescue of people stranded on the bridge was complete in three hours, while recovery of bodies—involving 75 local, state and federal agencies—took three weeks. An NTSB investigation cited a design flaw as the likely cause of the collapse, noting that a too-thin gusset plate ripped along a line of rivets.Photograph: Kevin Rofidal, United States Coast Guard; edit: Papa Lima Whiskey

Corrosion, collapse and de-icing?

Is there any substance to claims (made at black ice) that the collapse was encouraged by either the application of de-icing chemicals, or even by a heating system used to prevent icing? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I checked the NTSB report when it was added earlier, and it explicitly says "The examination of the collapsed structure, the finite element analysis, and the video recording of the collapse showed that the following were neither causal nor contributory to the collapse of the I-35W bridge: corrosion damage found on the gusset plates at the L11 nodes and elsewhere, fracture of a floor truss, preexisting cracking in the bridge deck truss or approach spans, temperature effects, or shifting of the piers." (emphasis mine). Looking at the history of black ice I think it's correct to leave the information about the de-icing system there, but to remove speculation about the cause of the collapse, unless (like it is here) it's followed up with clarification that it was ultimately held blameless. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hindsight bias in this article?

Some days ago I ran across the phenomenon of hindsight bias and I've been wondering whether this bias could also be present in this article... The hindsight bias delineates that in retrospect it is overestimated how likely, foreseeable and/or inevitable an event is perceived, and obviously a study has found it even in Wikipedia articles on catastrophes/accidents: doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7 In this respect I wondered whether that could be the case with this article, too, and whether the disaster is presented as more foreseeable and inevitable than it actually was before. Maybe we should search again for information that would have spoken against the disaster. Obviously, the hindsight bias results from a retrospective focusing on information that argue FOR the event while ignoring or not taking seriously information that argued AGAINST the event (or: for another outcome), which then, naturally, leads to the impression of inevitability and foreseeablitity... So I wondered whether this article might be affected by hindsight bias as well and should be therefore be checked again for this?--2A02:810D:1300:38E5:1464:C020:D8B8:34B3 (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"across the Saint Anthony Falls"

The bridge is 1/2 mile downstream from St. Anthony falls.

The bridge is a little downstream from the Lower St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam. The dam was constructed in 1895 solely for the purpose of hydroelectric generation using part of the rapid descent of the river from below the falls to below the Ford dam. The dam was rebuilt in 1956 with locks added. Seems to be a common idea there was a falls at this location, but there never was. BudKey (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Dead archive link

The archive link (and the original link) for citation 74 (Thompson, Cheryl A. (August 17, 2007). "Calm, Steady Hospital Care Shines During Bridge Disaster". Minnesota Hospital Association.) is dead. There needs to be an alternative source for this information. :3 F4U (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

I-35W Mississippi River bridge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: No significant improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Article was flagged by @Real4jyy: for reassessment on April 20, and from a quick readthrough GAR is definitely needed. This is a 2007 promotion [1] that was not thoroughly reviewed at the time. There are a copious amount of maintenance tags in this article: citations needed, failed verification, non-primary source needed, etc. I see some unsourced sentences that haven't been directly tagged as well. Significant work would be needed to save this GA. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delist , unless someone volunteers to work on the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.