Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Seattle bridges/archive1

List of Seattle bridges

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FL. I am not very familiar with the best formatting for lists and based it on some of the better bridge lists. I know there are a couple gaps (the length of the West Seattle Bridge is blanked and a couple other lengths do not have RS) and am attempting to address those. Is the format alright? Wikilinks? Headings? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Cptnono (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one thing: "Comments" should be changed to "Notes". CrowzRSA 02:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sweet.Cptnono (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: An interesting list with nice images. Here are some suggestions:

I would move the "Notes" column to the far right or, as explained below, move the notes to a Notes section below the table.

I'd make the "Length" and "Coordinates" columns sortable.
- I actually tried and could not get it to work. The software was sorting it by the first number and not the whole number. ANy idea how I can fix that?Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. I tried the Coordinates sort but did not see any problem with it. It sorts on the North half only, but that's OK. For the length sort, try the {{nts}} template for any numbers big enough to include a comma separator. I learned how to do this by using the tables in List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, a featured list, as my model. Finetooth (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be useful to include a "Width" or "Span" column as well as a "Length" column?
- "Width" is something I did not see in any other articles. I assume that is because the sourcing is not available. I considered other columns (like height above the waterway or total of any towers) but again did not see it anywhere else and don;t think the sourcing is available. What do you mean by "span"?Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was using "span" as a synonym for "width", but since you are using "span" for something else, "width" would be better. I found a "span" column in List of longest bridges in the world, but it has a lot of blank boxes, and it's not a featured list. The only featured bridge list that I found was List of bridges to the Island of Montreal, and it doesn't include a "width" column. What you use depends on what information is available and how useful you think it would be to readers. Finetooth (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be useful to include a column listing what kind of traffic the bridge carries; i.e., highway, street, rail, light-rail, pedestrian, bicycle? In the case of streets and highways, would it be useful to include their names and numbers?
- Totally. I will work on that.Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To make room for new columns, it would be possible to put the notes in a "Notes" section below the table rather than in the table itself. You might be interested in a "Notes and References" system like the one used in Voyage of the Karluk. The notes system you are using in the existing article doesn't make a truly clear visual distinction between a note and a citation. One has brackets, and the other does not, but at first glance they look quite similar. If you switch from a column of notes to a "Notes" section, you'll have a lot more notes, and it would be nice to instantly see which link led to a note and which to a reference entry.

I would think about using degrees, minutes, seconds instead of decimal coordinates because I think readers are more familiar with the former. However, coordinates appear in both forms in Wikipedia articles, so it may be a matter of editor's preference.
Is the list complete? The title indicates that this is a list of all kinds of bridges in Seattle. Are there any pedestrian-only bridges in the city? Bicycle-only? In big cities, there are often bridges for foot- and bicycle traffic that span highways that are otherwise difficult to cross except in a motor vehicle. Sometimes similar bridges span railways.
- It is a list of "notable" bridges that have Wikipedia articles. I tried to allude to this in the lead. Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did miss Salmon Bay Bridge which I will fix. I was thinking about adding South Park Bridge (Seattle) even though it is just outside of the city limits.Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The West Seattle Bridge is mentioned in the lead but doesn't appear in the table.
- It is but it is under its "official" name. Should I add common names to the first column (like "Jeanette Williams Memorial Bridge/West Seattle Bridge)? Currently, common names are in the "Notes" column.Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should bridges that have been demolished or replaced be included in the table? The article title does not suggest that this is a list of contemporary bridges only.
- See my comment above about notability.Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The structure was crippled after being struck by a freighter." - When did this happen?
- Sweet. Let me dig it up.Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images like File:Alaskanviaduct.jpg that are on the English Wikipedia but not on the Commons should be moved to the Commons to make them more widely available. I didn't check all of the images, and this one was the only one I noticed on a spot check. The others I checked were already on the Commons.
- Cool.Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used to regard linking something like Lake Washington or Bascule more than once in a table column was overlinking until another editor pointed out to me that in a sortable column it was not always convenient for readers to hunt for the box with the linked term. Since then I have been linking terms multiple times in sortable columns. So, I would probably link Viaduct and Duwamish River and so on in every box in which they appear in the table.
- I questioned that myself. I will make the change.Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
- Should be good. Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. Thank you!Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Based on the comments above, I have restructured the table. I am also in the process of adding more bridges that appear to be notable eve though they do not have articles yet.Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Imzadi1979

For your explanatory footnotes, I have a suggestion to make. If you use <ref name="Whatever" group="lower-alpha">...</ref>, then the superscript will use a lowercase letter instead of a number. Then you can use {{reflist|group="lower-alpha"}} to generate the list. I've used this system on articles like U.S. Route 131, and I find that it helps to separate the explanatory and citation footnotes both visually in the text of the article as well as into the two lists. You can even insert a reference into an explanatory footnote using the workaround {{#tag:ref|refcontent<ref>citation</ref>|name=name|group="lower-alpha"}}. If you don't like latin alphabet letters, there are default groups, "lower-greek" for lowercase greek alphabet letters or "lower-roman" for lowercase roman numerals (i ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii...). Otherwise, the system you're using now is confusing. (Is that superscript a note or a reference?) Imzadi 1979 → 12:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of cool. I get what you are saying since the only way to differentiate right now is to notice the slight variation of brackets v no brackets. Thanks!Cptnono (talk)