Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonestown Covered Bridge

< 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 User:SandyGeorgia 23:07, 13 December 2008 [1].

Sonestown Covered Bridge

edit
Nominator(s): Ruhrfisch ><>°°

Sonestown Covered Bridge has had a very helpful peer review (thanks to Dincher and Finetooth) whose suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. I believe this article, which follows the FA models of Cogan House Covered Bridge, Forksville Covered Bridge, and Hillsgrove Covered Bridge, meets all of the Featured Article criteria. This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback and have received positive comments. This is a very interesting bridge and I hope the article does it justice. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A fine addition to this series. For some unaccountable reason I missed the peer review, where I normally discharge my quibbles. Here are a few, mainly to do with punctuation usage. Don't feel you have to adopt my suggestions unless you agree they improve the text.

  • Lead: I would place a comma after 1969
  • Background last line): Prose flow would improve if a comma rather than a semicolon followed "other state", and "remained" became "remaining"
    • Thanks, changed the sentence in question to In 2001, Pennsylvania had more surviving historic covered bridges than any other state, with 221 remaining in 40 of its 67 counties.[14]
  • Construction: Perhaps a semicolon rather than a colon is required after "covered bridge", since what follows is not a list. Also, in the last sentence, I would put a comma after "in the state".
  • Use and restoration:
    • The comma after "1865" looks like one too many
    • "Even after the repair was completed, beer trucks making deliveries...could not cross it, but had to use handcarts instead". Two points here. First, it wasn't the beer trucks that had to use handcarts, so a slight rephrasing is advised. Secondly, a little explanation would be helpful here. Was this due to a weight restriction? If so, why did it only apply to beer trucks?
      • Thanks for pointing this out. I rewrote it so it now reads Even after the repair was completed, vehicles that were heavier or larger than the bridge’s limits could not use it. Since beer trucks could not cross it, deliveries to the American Legion Post southeast of the bridge were made with a hand cart instead.[29] The area is quite rural, so my guess is relatively few trucks go there and most of the ones that did just took the 5 mile detour (propane or home heating oil, or postal trucks). My guess is the beer delivery was probably faster with driving to the bridge and using a hand cart than going on a 10 mile round trip detour, but for propane or oil this would not work. The newspaper article does not give more detail on other trucks though. Hope the rewrite is OK, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...sometime between 1999 and 2002" seems a bit vague for such recent history. Perhaps "sometime" is superfluous? Also, I wonder if this sentence about a new bridge is in the right place, as it comes in the middle of discussion about repairs to the covered bridge. The next sentence begins "According to NBI data the bridge was...", which sounds as though you are talking about the new bridge.
      • I do not have a source that is more specific on the new bridge construction, although the next time I am there, I will check the new bridge for a plaque with its date of construction. I removed "sometimes" and added "covered" so the following sentence now reads "According to NBI data the covered bridge was...",. The reason the new bridge sentence is where it is now is two-fold. First it is chronological (earliest date for new bridge is before the NBI repair date). Second and more important, I imagine that a large part of why the new bridge was made was to provide access for all vehicles, not just those light enough to cross the bridge (avoid the detour), so the new bridge follows the beer delivery sentence (which I am still working on). Thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is all. An excellent article, well-craftd and illustrated Brianboulton (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support and helpful comments - I have done the quick fixes (punctuation) and will work on the others next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I have addressed all of the comments, thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my concerns were addressed in PR. Another fine article. Dincher (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for your kind words, edits, peer review and support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full Support with comments. Another excellent addition to what has become a series. Sorry to be such an idiot, but there are a few things I don't understand:

  • Davidson Township was first settled in 1806 and was incorporated in 1833. For readers who do not live in the U.S. perhaps a fuller explanation of incorporated would be useful. I'm guessing it means incorporated into Sulivan County?
    • Thanks for pointing this out. In Pennsylvania, townships are incorporated municipalities within their county (as are boroughs and cities). I changed the sentence to The area that became Davidson Township was first settled in 1806 and was incorporated as a township in 1833.[10] and added a note to reference [10] that reads Note: Davidson Township was formed in 1833 from part of Shrewsbury Township while both were still part of Lycoming County. Hopefully this is clearer, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are wing walls?
    • Wing walls extend out away from the abutments at an angle, and hold the dirt and fill that make the ramp up to the bridge in place. I added an explanation and reference to the article - is this clearer? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is a little illogical Even after the repair was completed, vehicles that were heavier or larger than the bridge’s limits could not use it. Does it mean original limits?
    • I meant the posted weight and height limits. Have added "original" to the sentence. Just to try and make it clearer, when it was being repaired after the flood damage, no vehicles could use it (the newspaper article has a photo with most of the floor ripped out, presumably to work on the floor beams). Even after it was repaired (and today) trucks are generally too heavy or too tall / big to cross it, which is almost certainly why they built the new bridge just downstream. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what scour conditions are.
    • Changed it to It found that the bridge's foundations were stable for scour conditions (the potential for the stream washing them out), ..., hopefully clearer, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 22 is a little untidy, can we a least lose the etc. etc.
    • Wel, that is the full original title from the more prolix 19th century (even including the double "etc."). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another well-written and engaging article. Graham Colm Talk 13:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologize that I have not replied until now - I was offline most of the day and only saw Ealdgyth's edit in my watchlist the one time I was on before. I will reply to the points above next, but wanted to thank you for your kind words and support first (and apologize). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replied to all of your comments and hope things are clearer - thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I enjoyed reading this when I was doing the peer review mentioned above by User:Ruhrfisch. All of my PR concerns have been addressed. Nice job. Finetooth (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for your kind words, edits, peer review, and support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images appear to be fine. Personally, I am relieved that someone else also misspells their image uploads per Image:Sonestwon Covered Bridge 9.jpg. Thanks for that. --Moni3 (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much - for what it's worth, I also got the capitalization wrong in "Image:Sonestown COvered Bridge 10.jpg" ;-) I figure the Commons admins have better things to do than move my typos to their correct names. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I found the dedication date for the new bridge and added that. In the process I saw the bridge was not decorated or lit for the holidays this year and so moved and tweaked that sentence too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might still be early for Christmas decorations. Not saying that you gotta make another trip though. Dincher (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the same trip I saw that the Forksville Covered Bridge was decorated and had lights, but it may be too early for Sonestown. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:56, 9 December 2008 (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.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sonestown_Covered_Bridge&oldid=1048939310"