Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BP Pedestrian Bridge/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 21:30, 16 June 2009 [1].

BP Pedestrian Bridge

edit
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), Torsodog (talk · contribs), Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs)
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I have finally gotten a good copy editor (Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs)) involved in the article. He has cleaned up the text, gotten the images winnowed down to a useful quantity, provided us with a great template map of the entire park and helped us clean up the references. I think it is really headed in the right direction.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. He has already agreed to close the PR when I nominated this, so the PR will close momentarily.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as noted I did a major copy edit on this and also appreciate the very helpful most recent peer review, as well as the comments from the previous FACs andPRs. I believe this now meets the FAC criteria and will watch this FAC to see if more copyedits are needed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I somehow missed that Tony and Torsodog graciously listed me as a conominator above. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A few comments (all trivial and none deal-breakers):
  1. Do people actually call it "the BP Bridge", or has it acquired a nickname? Big civic projects have a habit of being renamed by the public, despite their official name, and just looking at this one suggests a whole bunch of nicknames.
  2. Does the bridge have a problem with suicides? That low-barrier/freeway combination looks to have all the hallmarks of a suicide bridge.
  3. Was it assembled in situ, or built offsite and shipped to its present location?
  4. It could do with some critical comments in the "Aesthetics" section. At the moment, I see lots of people saying how great it is, but no design – let alone one this modern – is uncritically received; there must be at least some prominent Chicago and/or architectural figures who think it's an eyesore.
    • I am not as familiar with the refs on this as Tony is, but I did not see much negative criticism. There was a news story where some ordinary Chicagoans said it looked like a UFO or spaceship or some other things, but I am having trouble fidning that now. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The whole "has to close during winter" thing could do with some expansion. Firstly, if it's documented, just how the decision to build something that can't operate in the cold got approved by people who were presumably aware of Illinois weather; secondly, if there are any plans to remedy this (replacing the flooring? roofing?).
  6. What happens when the bridge is closed? Does the park have to shut down as well, or are the alternative routes sufficient?
  7. Has it had any impact on the surrounding area? As those who've followed my bridge-and-rail series will know, one of my pet themes is just how big an impact bridges and stations have on their surrounding area; has it lead to increased people visiting the area and a knock-on effect on businesses near the park?
    • The whole park was newly opened when the bridge opened. The park is one of the city's most popular tourist attractions. It is hard to attribute this to the bridge in isolation since the park has more than a dozen features.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a repsonse to points 6 and 7 really. Even when the bridge is closed there are many other ways to enter the park and the more populous areas are across the other three streets (not Columbus Drive) - part of the original purpose of the bridge was to increase ease of access to the Lakefront and points east across Columbus from the rest of the Loop. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Is "a continuous five percent slope" accurate? That would mean one end is almost 50 feet higher than the other. Certainly possible, if it exits onto a hill, but it doesn't seem all that likely, and "on the level" photos like File:Bpbridgepole-2.jpg don't show any obvious slope.
  9. This one will probably get me shouted at by Tony (the other one) and Sandy as I'm sure it breaches some policy or other, but I think it could do with some transport information (nearest station, nearby landmarks). I'm fairly familiar with 1990s Chicago (that is to say, before this was built), yet I just had to look on Google Earth to figure out "ah, that's the thing they were building next to Randolph Street Station". I'm not talking about "a block south on Wabash and two blocks east on Monroe" type directions, but just something like "to the northeast of the Art Institute of Chicago".
    • All of that is in the more general article about the park. I am not so sure how much of that should be repeated in the articles for each feature.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, although I still think it ought to at least say something like "in the north of Grant Park". I imagine a lot of people reading this particular article will be people using Wikipedia to plan vacations, to whom this kind of information is useful. I always say that WP:USEFUL is a stupid guideline; the whole point of Wikipedia ought to be to be as useful to our readers as we can. As I say, though, your article, and certainly not something I'd oppose over. – iridescent 20:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are a bridge guy and I am not. I personally don't think people would plan a trip just to visit the bridge. I think people using WP to plan a vacation would be taking in the whole park. Even in Chicago, no one would say go to the north end of Grant Park. Once, we say it is in Millennium Park, that is sufficient. Millennium Park is about as famous as it gets in Chicago. It is the second most popular tourist attraction in the city. More than the Sears Tower, etc. I would add anything you request, but am not so sure anything further is really relevant here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know Chicago far better than me; like I say, my knowledge of it is all 10+ years out of date. Also, I know it from the perspective of someone living in IN, so my view is probably skewed by a "the nearer it is to Randolph Street Station the more likely I am to know it" bias. If you and Ruhrfisch both think it's not necessary I certainly defer to you in this case. – iridescent 22:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have not seen the bridge in person (alas) and though I love Chicago I have not been there in several years, so my knowledge is also out of date. That said, the article does describe Millennium Park as being in the northwest corner of Grant Park and west of Columbus Drive in the first paragraph of the "Preliminary plans" section, and the wikilinked map at the bottom does show the surrounding streets. I would be OK with adding something like "The new park is also north of Monroe Street and the Art Institute, east of Michigan Avenue, and south of Randolph Street." at the end of that paragraph. Would that be better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's all of them. As I say, none of them are outright problems, just things that I think ought potentially to be there. – iridescent 20:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple questions though. First, the following notes are only cited once:
56 ^ Jencks, p. 257
57 ^ Waters, p. 161
58 ^ Feuerstein, p. 131
...yet they are singled out as references. They provide some context and are interesting in my opinion, though listing them in a reference section seems slightly misleading to me since they don't mention this bridge. May I suggest moving them into the notes section for that reason. DVD 04:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the single-use refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second, they are linked to google books with search words highlighted. Would it be better to link to the pages in google books without the search words? DVD 04:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to ask for technical assistance on unhighlighting because I surely can not manipulate the URL myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I unhighlighted them. DVD 04:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What did you have to do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just trimmed them back to the page number, where it says for instance pg=PA250. The main clue is after that the search words are listed with pluses between them, so you just delete that part back to the page number. Not easy to explain but pretty easy to do, just take a look at the last edit I made to the article. DVD 05:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Looking good...

  • "north-south" en dash.
  • changed
  • "the bridge might not have been as sleek as it is." Last three words are unnecessary.
  • removed "as it is"
  • "sheet metal work totalled 5,900 field hours" Shouldn't we be using American English? "totaled"
  • changed
  • "There are convex, concave and radius areas stretching the total length of both sides of the bridge, which is 1,728 feet (526.7 m)."-->Convex, concave and radius areas stretch the total length of both sides of the bridge, which is 1,728 feet (526.7 m).
  • changed
  • changed
  • "Gehry has a long history of artistic use of scaled animals such as fish and snakes, a history that goes back to the 1960s and first appeared in his architectural designs in the 1980s." Seems unnecessarily wordy, why not "Since the 1960s, Gehry has made artistic use of scaled animals such as fish and snakes, which first appeared in his architectural designs in the 1980s."
  • nice edit. changed
  • Unlink the dates in the references.
  • There is a lot of date format inconsistency in the references in general. When I get a chance, I will format all dates to Month 00, 0000 and remove the links. --TorsodogTalk 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL... I wish I would have known there was an easier way. I just got 3/4 of the way through the page doing it all manually before I realized you had done it already with a script! Either way, thanks for the help. --TorsodogTalk 16:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Overall, the article looks better than it did the last time I saw it. However, I still have some concerns about the "Use and controversies" section. That bit about the bridge closing during the Tori Amos concert is sourced to the Sun-Times letters page. And that source doesn't even say that the bridge was closed because "attendees were outraged at being charged for seating". The letter writer guesses that it was closed because "Tori Amos and her crew need to have the world's most expensive red carpet". Zagalejo^^^ 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for catching this. I changed the sentences to ... the city charged $10 for lawn seating at an August 31, 2005 Tori Amos concert, leading to protests.[46][47] On the day of the concert, officials closed the bridge—which is generally open to the public—until 7 a.m. the next day.[48] and cut out the parts not supported by the source. Is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is remotely possible that the bridge closing had nothing to do with the Amos concert. The sources don't really give us enough to work with. The only one that mentions the bridge at all is the letter to the editor. I think David Cane makes a good point about the last two paragraphs in that section. The details don't help readers understand the bridge any better. We wouldn't be losing much if we just deleted them. Zagalejo^^^ 04:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my comment on the bridge closure for private events below (I am definitely in favor of keeping those in). I am on the fence about including the Tori Amos concert closure with the current refs. I think it definitely belongs in an article about the park itself and about the Pritzker Pavilion, but am not sure if it belongs here. I will defer to Tony and Torsodog on keeping this in or not. If it were deleted, the text could read something like In addition to weather-related closures in the winter, the bridge has had controversial event-related closures in the summer. These closures have been part of larger park concerns. In both 2005 and 2006, the bridge and almost all of Millennium Park was closed for a day ... Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Final Plan:
      • From the description and the images, most of the 935 feet length quoted for the bridge is actually composed of ramps. Although the article states that the bridge is "over ten times longer than the span of street it crosses" it does not say what the length of the central span over Columbus Drive is. I think that for a bridge the actual span is a crucial factor.
        • The bridge is very curvy and I have never seen that quoted. There is likely a measure of the breadth of the Columbus Drive, but I do not have it and am not sure where to look. Would the width of the road crossed be sufficient?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I looked at every ref cited and found only this in current ref 20 from 2000: The pedestrian bridge is supposed to link Millennium Park with another section of Grant Park, Daley Bicentennial Plaza, just to its east. They are now separated by a trenchlike portion of Columbus Drive, about 150 feet wide, where speeding cars create an intimidating environment for pedestrians. This is much wider than 93 feet maximum width implied by one-tenth of 935 feet. Looking at images this also seems like it may be a bit too wide to me - looking at File:Bpbridgepole-2.jpg and using 12 feet as the standard minimum road lane width and counting the sidewalks on either side and the central divider as three lanes, I would estimate it as about 110 feet wide. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • According to the article, we do know the clearance of the bridge (14'6") which appears to be about a tenth of the width shown in the photo, so 150' (straight line span) might be about right. I think most readers would expect to see the bridge span stated rather than just the total with ramps included - particularly as the ramps are so long in comparison. --DavidCane (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I added this sentence to the end of the first paragraph of the Final plan section: The width of the "trenchlike portion of Columbus Drive" spanned is approximately 150 feet (46 m).[20] Is this OK? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I reread the sources and combined the width sentences, so they now read According to the Chicago Tribune the width of the "trenchlike" area spanned is approximately 150 feet (46 m),[20] while The New York Times reports the bridge is over ten times longer than Columbus Drive is wide.[25] The Tribune width seems to be of the whole trench (street and sidewalks between the walls, approximate span of the bridge) while the Times says the bridge is about 1000 feet long(!) and seems to be referring to just the width of Columbus Drive itself. Since we have two reliable sources I tired to attribute and draw the distinctions as I understood them - is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might be worth explaining what the "Lurie Garden seam" is as it wasn't exactly clear even from reading the Lurie Garden article. Suggest something like "...so that the west ramp coincided with the boardwalk of the Lurie Garden seam", if I have understood it correctly.
      • "precise location of the Monroe Street Garage" seems a little over-precise. Presumably the garage covers a large area.
      • What is the weight of a full capacity load of pedestrians?
    • Construction:
      • I think the actual thickness of the stainless steel plate should be given in brackets, rather than just the gauge; e.g. (0.031 inches or 0.79 millimetres). Bear in mind that the gauge section of the sheet metal article is US-centric and different gauge systems apply elsewhere or sheet metal is specified just by its actual thickness.
      • I think there may be a problem with interpreting the source's meaning of "convex, concave and radius areas stretching a total of 1,728 lineal feet, which is the total length of both sides of the bridge". Logically, for a bridge 935 feet long, the length of both sides added together should be 1,870 feet, so something seems to be missing (assuming that the Mary Cameron Frey article in the Chicago Sun-Times is correct as to the length). The use of the definite article ("...stretch the total length of both sides...") on the BP page has a different meaning to the ASM's use of the indefinite article ("...stretching a total of..."). It might be better to just say that a variety of convex, concave and radiused panels were used.
        • It seems conceivable to me that one side could be longer than the other because of all the curvature. It also seems to me that defining length as one specific number is less meaningful as a result. There is probably a way to measure length so that 935 is correct and another so that the lineal footage number is correct. I do not know how a winding bridge is measured, but am just presenting sourced numbers as we have them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Tony and have been thinking about Track meets where they have a staggered start so the runners all end at the same finish line. This has a lot of loops and curves and I would not be surprised at all if you got different lengths measuring each outside edge and straight down the middle of the walkway. The south side crossing Columbus is the inside curve for that broad curve and also for a very tight loop in Daley Bicentennial Plaza, while the north side is the outside curve for both of those and is the inside for only one notr as tight loop. My guess is the south side is noticably shorter. Also complicating things is the outward slope of the sides - do you measure at ground level or at the edge of the walkway? We seem to be getting into the dreaded Original Reseearch here (cue scary music). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Measuring things is something I do professionally. For a running track, although the inside and outside edges of the track are different lengths, if they are added together and the result is divided in two you will always get the the same result as if you measured the centre-line length of the track, no matter how convoluted it's route - provided that the width remains constant. As you note, the width of the cladding to the BP bridge is not constant along its length or from one side to the other, so it is probable that the lengths of the two sides are different; however, as the text stands there is an apparent disparity which could be resolved in a note. --DavidCane (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use and controversies:
      • Most of the last two paragraphs of this section are not about the bridge, but the city authority's attitude to commercial exploitation of the park itself.
        • Yes the bridge was only a part of the exploitation in the last paragraph. I feel this is a relevant concern for people interested in learning about the bridge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am on the fence about the Tori Amos concert closure (please see above) but I think the two closures for private events are definitely worth including. It tells the reader about the use of the bridge and attitudes towards it (the public is upset when they cannot use it, private parties want to make sure they get exclusive use of it for their money). Another editor commented above that the article did not contain much negative criticism of the bridge and removing these would only make that worse (so I see this as a NPOV issue too). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • My thinking is that reviewers are requesting details about proximity to other landmarks and notable locations be included here because although they are more relvant for the park as a whole, the reader might only read this article. When discussing closures that include the bridge, the topic is equally broader in scope but relevant in this article. The general park closures belong in this article as much as the bridge's proximity to Art Institute of Chicago or Michigan Avenue does.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't believe removing these paragraphs would make the article any less neutral. These specific controversies aren't about structural flaws in the bridge (which are certainly worth mentioning). People were really complaining about the city authorities, not the bridge itself. (And as a general point about NPOV, some topics just haven't generated that much criticism. In those cases, we should be careful not to give undue weight to minor events just to appear more neutral.)
            • I'd be OK with a sentence or two explaining that the bridge is sometimes closed to the public during corporate events. But a whole paragraph about the closings seems like an unnecessary distraction. It's not like people were rioting that they couldn't get onto the bridge. Respectfully, Zagalejo^^^ 01:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, I tried cutting the controversies back. I removed Tori Amos altogether and pruned the two rentals (with some details in a footnote now). The two paragraphs now read The bridge has also had controversial closures in the summer, which were related to larger park concerns. On September 8, 2005, Toyota Motor Sales USA paid $800,000 to rent the bridge and all but four venues in the park from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.[46][47] On August 7, 2006, Allstate paid $700,000 to rent the bridge and most of the park for a day.[48][49] Excluding commuters who normally walk through the park and tourists lured by its attractions was controversial, though the city said the money raised paid for free public programs in Millennium Park.[46] How is this? Here's the diff. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • General:
      • "BP Pedestrian Bridge" is used with and without the definite article through out the page. BP bridge is also used in the image captions and the map of the park. Is the repeated use of "pedestrian" after the lead section necessary, particularly as the alternative name "BP bridge" is given there.
        • Thanks for catching this. I tried to make all uses of the full name also include the definite article and also checked all the plain "BP BRidge" uses. I am in favor of using both names within the article for variety. Some sources refer to it with the full name, so it is used some. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • --DavidCane (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image niggles as follows:

That is it. Images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/BP_Pedestrian_Bridge/archive3&oldid=1138455271"