Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosendale trestle/archive1

< 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 03:20, 3 April 2011 [1].

Rosendale trestle edit

Rosendale trestle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once the highest span bridge in the United States, this 940-foot (290 m) trestle was sold in 1986 for one dollar to a man who dreamed of turning it into a bungee jumping platform. It has seen its fair share of weddings and ghost dogs, and is currently about to be renovated and turned into a public walkway. Gyrobo (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Don't use contractions
  • Fixed
  • Fixed with archiveurl
  • Images - W.V.R.R._Bridge,_Rosendale,_looking_down_the_Creek,_by_D._J._Auchmoody.jpg has a dead "digital record" link, and lacks an original licensing tag - it's a scan of a public domain image, but what makes the image public domain? Needs a PD licensing tag too. Same issues with R.R._Depot_at_Rosendale,_N.Y,_by_D._J._Auchmoody.jpg
  • Hmmm...I just checked on a different computer, and this is a dead link (500 error). Interestingly, the link on R.R. Depot works on the second computer, but returns the same 500 error as the W.V.R.R. Bridge link on my laptop. Not sure what's going on with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location for Lith Art?
  • Fixed
  • Organization: suggest ditching the "History" heading and making all of its subheadings level-2 headings
  • I'd prefer not to, because an engineering report on the bridge should be coming out soon, and there may be enough information there to have separate sections on the bridge's structure and geology/hydrology.
  • Kinston or Kingston?
  • Fixed
  • "Unlike other stations on the line, it was not designed to be rectangular" - then what is it?
  • Clarified

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use of an ASIN - isn't OCLC better than ASIN, OCLC being neutral source? OCLC 2597851 I believe. Rjwilmsi 23:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, and I'll update it in other articles where I use this source. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from NortyNort

  • Images
  • The librarian at the Rosendale Library scanned those images from the library's collection and told me they were in the public domain. I'm not sure which tags to use on them, since I'm not sure if PD material needs licensing attribution. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose
  • Is "It is located about 2 miles (3.2 km) south of the buildings now comprising the Binnewater Historic District." necessary in the "Repurposing" section?
  • Did the person trying to jump off the bridge without the cord have anything to do with its closure? If so, the word "also" can be added to better form the sentence into the paragraph.
  • The book only said that someone tried to jump without a cord. It didn't go into any detail, and I haven't heard any further about the incident. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, I think private individual should be replaced with "businessman" to make it sound less vague.
  • "...exercise in conceptual art." I am guessing this means leaving the town's buildings behind?
  • "...so many people drowned that the area..." How many? If the number is uncertain, I would reword the sentence. "; due to numerous drownings"
  • I don't see how "numerous" is any better than "so many" here, and the source did make it seem like it was a fair amount of people, without giving specific numbers. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it is what it is, IMO at first read, "so many" came off a bit unfitting.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it just the "height of the bridge" that "evoked memories of collapses"? ... "Also height of the bridge helped evoked memories of collapses..."
  • This is the source that said the bridge was so high it could "scarcely be crossed for the first time without something like a feeling of terror". In the same paragraph it talks about the Tay Bridge disaster, and really only describes the bridge in terms of how its height is scary. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other
  • No deadlinks
  • Coren indicated no copyright violations
  • References look good as well.

Great article on an impressive and historical bridge. Good luck with the FAC.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Article is written well and has some great images. I see my concerns address and support this article as a FAC.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Nice piece about an impressive engineering work. I've given it a quick copy edit, but things flowed pretty well as is, so I didn't have to change much. You'll want to check my changes to see if anything is amiss, though. I've got a few questions about the article, since I don't know much about New York state geography, railroad operations, or architecture.
  • Can you still call it a railroad trestle even though it no longer carries a railroad line?
  • Fixed, added the word "former". --Gyrobo (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images need alt text, and the alt text for the infobox picture needs to describe the scene rather than simply duplicate the caption.
  • Quick note: though alt text is great to have, it's no longer part of the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the heads-up. It's been a while since I went through the FAC process myself; maybe it's time again. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you distinguish someone bungee jumping without a cord and someone simply attempting suicide?
  • The author didn't provide that much information, he just said someone made the attempt. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is information about the Rosendale train depot included in the article? When I read the article, I don't see a connection to the trestle.
  • The trestle was very close to the depot, and since there are no other articles on rail traffic in Rosendale, I thought it would be relevant to have it here – much like how I put in a small section into La Stazione on New Paltz's second, less notable station. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're right, but is there a way to express that connection, something like ... "The trestle was located within the city limits of Rosendale, which also boasted a train station ..." JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the wording slightly, I think it's more in line with what you're talking about. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are inflation-adjusted figures or some kind of cost comparison available? In historical articles, using context like that helps me figure out what kind of achievement spending $250,000 on a bridge was.
  • In the Albany City Hall FAC, I found out that you can't use the inflation template for capital goods, and I don't really know what kind of conversion needs to be done here. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't sure about calculating for capital items either, and hoped you might know. In that case, is there a comparable trestle that you could state the cost of? I'm just looking for some kind of context to show whether that $250,000 price tag was exceptional, average, below-average, or something else. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I'm not really well-versed enough in economics to know which kind of conversion to use here. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the construction section, you say "420,000 feet (130,000 m) of timber"; is this board feet, cubic feet, or something else?
  • The source just says feet. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By this time" in the last sentence of the first paragraph in active rail service isn't clear.
  • "When the track reached the Kingston Union Station in November 1872, the ... By this time," I really don't know a better way to phrase this without repeating the date.
  • Let me clarify myself. It says that it was the first railroad in Kingston, yet "by this time," trains were already running regularly to Kingston. Does it mean something like "soon after the railroad arrived in Kingston, trains were running regularly to the town"? JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are a little conflicted over the timeline, actually. Mabee says that by October, trains were running regularly to and from Kingston, and Best says that the rail line was completed in November. It's possible that trains were running to the city limits, while construction to the station was ongoing. I thought it best to leave the wording a little vague on this point. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand now, but you might want to state as much, since as it's written now, it prompts additional questions that aren't answered. If a source doesn't indicate, just state as much. The same thing could be said about the reinforcement and maintenance questions, but I leave that up to you. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did the bridge require reinforcement "by 1885"?
  • The source just says it was strengthened, and the source was published in 1885. So from the time it was built, to 1885, the bridge was strengthened. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha. So there wasn't any inherent flaw with the design that required fixing? JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that I'm aware of, it just says that it was strengthened at some unspecified point for some unspecified reason. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to show a map of the immediate area? I'm not familiar enough with the geography of New York to understand where these towns are, and where Rosendale is in relationship to the bridge.
  • I included a map showing the location of the trestle within New York. It's within Rosendale, so the map should cover that as well. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. A map of the county showing these towns you reference would be ideal, but that'll work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a map of the WVRR's original route. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome! That's exactly what I was hoping to see. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK; I see later on in the article that Rosendale incorporated the bridge by 1977 ... was the bridge in the town when it was built, or did the town grow to encompass the bridge? I strongly suggest moving up the information about the location of this station and the other two in Rosedale.
  • I'm hesitant to move it, because that paragraph currently groups all information about rail stations in Rosendale in one place.
  • It's probably easier for me to show you than tell you what I mean for this one, so I'm going to make an edit, and feel free to revert it if you disagree. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest moving the sentence about "apparations" further down the article in order to preserve the flow of time the article has going, unless you've got something that says these ghosts appeared back in the 1880s, in which case the sentence should say that.
  • I think that's actually a good place to put that information, because it's already talking about the area under the bridge (the canal). --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "while still in use" when talking about renovations mean they were running trains across it while the work was under way, or does it simply mean that it happened during the working life of the bridge?
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this, but the bridge was rebuilt while the rail line was still active. Traffic wasn't stopped for reconstruction. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was this boiler explosion that shook the bridge? Was it on the bridge, in Rosendale, in the quarry, or somewhere else? It's a bit unclear to me. Also, how far away was the quarry?
  • The source doesn't go into a lot of detail here, but it was nearby. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence describing the shape of the destroyed Rosendale station doesn't seem necessary to me. How does the shape of the station relate to the trestle?
  • It's just a description of the station, I really don't see the harm in having it. And it does demonstrate the steepness of the slopes the trestle connects. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any information on the maintenance of the trestle: how much it cost, what had to be done, and whether it was economically viable to operate?
  • All that information would be available in the engineering report that some of the sources said would out in January 2011. There just aren't any sources for this. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you talk about limiting speeds on the trestle as it deteriorated, how fast were trains traveling it before? Again, this is a context thing, since I'm not familiar with the topic.
  • The sources don't include this information. This bridge, despite being regionally impressive, isn't very well-chronicled. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That county legislator screaming line is cute, but I'm not sure it adds much. Was this a particularly notable incident?
  • It describes public reaction to the bridge being converted to a bungee jumping platform, and doesn't harm readers understanding of the subject. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many bridges were featured in the King Company catalogs of the 1880s and 1890s?
  • The source doesn't say, and I'm not sure why that would be relevant. The King Bridge Company ref just says that it's the only railroad bridge from their catalogs still standing. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha. It's a context thing for me. Because I don't know how many bridges were in the catalog, I don't know how important the fact that it's the only one still standing is. If there were only three, then it's not that impressive. If there were 50, that's a quite a bit more notable. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it from me. I know it's a lot to look at, but I'm not as familiar with the topic, and if you aren't sure why I'm asking something, just write a note, and I'll explain where I'm coming from. It's a pretty high-quality article as is, but I think some supplementary information (to be added when/if you answer the questions above) would make it more accessible and truly FA class. Keep up the good work, and drop me a line! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. With the changes that have been made, I support this article's promotion to FA status. It is well-written, well-illustrated, appears comprehensive, and is understandable to someone unfamiliar with the topic. The added maps provide an excellent geographical frame of reference, and I believe in good faith that when an additional engineering report is released or additional sources come to light, that any uncertainties about 19th century operations and maintenance/operating costs will be resolved. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Racepacket (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. Per this note on FAC talk, I have posted my comments to this FAC's talk page. This is an experiment to see if it makes the FAC easier to understand and navigate for the delegates, but if you don't like the effect, let me know and I'll move the comments back here. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier for me than to have to read through reams of stuff to see what has been resolved, assuming you'll post back to here once resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All my issues have been address; switched to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review? Have the image issues raised above been resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward tense change in the lead: After it was seized by the county in 2009, the trestle is being renovated as a pedestrian walkway for the Wallkill Valley Rail Trail.
All these commas, there must be a less awkward way to write this: Conrail sold the bridge, along with 11.5 miles (18.5 km) of the Wallkill Valley rail corridor, in 1986 to a private businessman, John Rahl, for one dollar.
  • I don't think it's that bad, and there's not really a good way to remedy this; would en dashes before and after the part about the corridor improve it? --Gyrobo (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the point and overlooked the sentence in my review. Try this "For one dollar, Conrail sold the bridge and 11.5 miles (18.5 km) of the Wallkill Valley rail corridor in 1986 to private businessman John Rahl."--NortyNort (Holla) 02:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems a little like putting the cart before the horse; the important point, that should be mentioned first, is that the bridge was sold. Then, a mention as to who purchased the trestle, and finally, the astounding fact that the purchase price was only one dollar. Reordering it to eliminate the commas and pauses rushes the sentence and doesn't let the reader gracefully digest the content. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary quotes throughout where paraphrasing would seem to suffice or colloquial language (didn't pan out) is introduced. Rewriting in our own original words would be better. Another sample: Though the trestle was "tough" to build,[7] and originally quite "flimsy",[8] it was "exception[al]" for its time,[9] and can be considered the "most awesome part" of the Wallkill Valley rail line. Awesome? Can be considered (by one writer)? Due to its height, it could "scarcely be crossed for the first time without something like a feeling of terror". (for some maybe).
  • I don't think those quotes are unnecessary, or that paraphrasing them would improve the quality of the article. The goal of FAs is to include brilliant prose, and colloquialisms make articles interesting and approachable. Yes, one writer considered it "awesome" – just as another considered it "flimsy". If the sources are reliable, and accurate, and make the article interesting, I see no reason to alter the cited text so long as what's written is faithful to said sources. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see much in the way of prose problems, but I can see why that particular sentence raises eyebrows. I actually think the "most awesome part" is worth keeping -- it may feel colloquial, but it expresses the source's opinion clearly. The others seem easy to find synonyms for, though, which would avoid the clunky feel of multiple consecutive single-word quotes. How about "Though the trestle was difficult to build, and originally not very sturdy, it was remarkable for its time, and is considered by one commentator the "most awesome part" of the Wallkill Valley rail line"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleaned up with wording. I thought it would look pretty cool to have a sentence constructed from multiple quoted words, but this way is fine. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would like some prose tightening effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Board feet is volumetric-- you can't convert timber measurements from ft to meters without knowing what kind of feet are being measured. Isn't it logical that Route 213 would be higher than the creek? So how can the bridge be the same height above both? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues need to be resolved here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NortyNort did an image review quite a while ago and found no issues. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images - Gyrobo asked me on my talk to revisit the images here. I'll preface the following by saying that I'm not an expert on US copyright law.

  • It's not subscription-based. I'm having no problem accessing that site from multiple computers; and like I said, this is one of about 72,000 public domain images uploaded to the commons by a bot. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rosendale_trestle_postcard.jpg and File:Rosendale_trestle_with_train_and_two_women.jpg - if these are PD works, attribution should not be required - but do we know for sure that "early 20th century" means "before 1923"? I see above that the librarian told you these images were PD, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are. You might want to ask someone more knowledgeable on the details of US copyright to review them. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribution is not required, I only mentioned it as a courtesy. When I first asked the Rosendale Library for permission to upload these images, I asked if they were first published before 1923, or if anyone still held copyright on them. I was told that they were in the public domain. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just mention that this explanation would not have satisfied Elcobbola (talk · contribs), but he's no longer editing, so I guess they'll slide by. Just don't try this again :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria says that the images are fine. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is still choppy and jumping all over the place: why is the Poughkeepsie bridge mentioned here, for example? "Following an engineering survey by Bergmann Associates[51] – the same firm that inspected the Poughkeepsie Bridge prior to its conversion to a walkway[52] – the bridge was closed to the public in June 2010 for repairs." The lead is short, but if reviewers are happy ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 3 April 2011 (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/Rosendale_trestle/archive1&oldid=1138470283"