Template:Did you know nominations/Covered Bridge (Cedarburg, Wisconsin)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Covered Bridge (Cedarburg, Wisconsin)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Covered Bridge is the last remaining covered bridge in Wisconsin?

Created/expanded by Anna Frodesiak (talk), Riley Huntley (talk). Nominated by Riley Huntley (talk) at 09:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Article is classified as a stub on the talk page. Needs to be fixed because stubs aren't allowed in DYK. Good luck! Woz2 (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've changed that to start class. Miyagawa (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that Covered Bridge is the last remaining covered bridge in Wisconsin?
• ALT2 ... that "Covered Bridge" is the last remaining covered bridge in Wisconsin? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• ALT3 ... that Covered Bridge is the last of its kind in Wisconsin? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• ALT4 ... that Covered Bridge is the last such bridge in Wisconsin? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Full Review:

• 3940B prose, new article
• Neutral, cited inline
• Hooks are sufficiently brief
• Hook image is freely licensed
• Not a self-nom, so QPQ not required
• Image licenses seems good

Suggestions/Issues:

• the bridge spans 120 feet long - say it "is 120 long" because the center abutment means that it doesn't span 120 feet

Bridge was moved, so not sure if that changes the length. Maybe there was some extra wood or they extended it a bit. Not sure how the abutment provides info about length. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

On this point, it is grammatically redundant to say "spans 120 feet long". In this case, long seems more accurate as the ref shows the bridge at 120 feet but there is some overlap on the supports, so it spans slightly less from bank to bank. Chris857 (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• There are some effectively bare refs (just a title and url). Flesh out all refs
• First and third paragraphs of Construction and specifications has no refs, one should be included in every paragraph. Also, if a reference should be placed at the end of the content it covers (for example "The interior walls were lined with a protective wheel guard about one foot above the deck." has no ref after it in the same paragraph.)

I added refs to support that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

More review to come. Chris857 (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't necessary to use the title of the article as the link. Here are two ALT hooks demonstrating a different approach:

• ALT5 ... that the 1876 span across Cedar Creek (pictured) is the last surviving covered bridge in Wisconsin?
• ALT6 ... that the last surviving covered bridge in Wisconsin (pictured) was built in 1876?

I notice that the article has some bare-url reference citations to Wikimedia Commons images. These should be converted to become citations to the Historic American Buildings Survey documents that happen to be available at Commons. --Orlady (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps cite the original source of the images at Library of Congress. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would have value, but the important thing in this case is to identify title/authorship/publisher; the URL is an additional convenience. The article links to several HABS images on Commons and already lists the HABS as the original publisher/author for some of them, but not all. --Orlady (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this one was abandoned by its creators and original reviewer. I've fixed the bare urls and some other issues with the article. I think everything is OK now, but somebody else is going to have to review it. I greatly prefer ALTs 5 and 6, which get around the oddness of calling this bridge "Covered Bridge". --Orlady (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The following has been checked in this review by Maile66

• QPQ not necessary
• Article created by Anna Frodesiak on July 22, 2012 and has 4,056 characters of readable prose
• NPOV
• Every paragraph sourced
• Hooks Alt 5 and Alt 6 are interesting, short enough and appropriately sourced
• Hook image is an original work by Freekee and has been freely licensed at Commons since 2009
• Duplication Detector run, no copyvio found
• Time spent on review approximately 30 minutes

Good to go, Maile66 (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)