User talk:Denimadept/Harvard Bridge

I've really got to do a BPL run to get more sources. I see a book at the BPL which looks promising. [1]

Per Denumadept's request, i've done some copyediting and tagging with {{fact}} where appropriate. Overall, I think it could be a decent article. In its current form, I would rate it as C-class; I think that if it is expanded some more and more sources are added, it could graduate to B before long.

My one major concern is the panoramic image. Its really pretty, but I don't recall seeing any image like it on the wiki. It may be acceptable in an article or it may not, I actually don't know what the convention is. I would suggest somebody look into it.

Overall, nicely done. Firestorm ^Talk 03:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm looking at a second source, dated 1972, but I have to go to it. I've pretty much drained the 1892 source.

I don't like the panoramic view. It's not of the bridge, but rather of what can be seen from the bridge. I've not yet decided to remove it, though. - Denimadept (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's evolving into a nicely comprehensive and readable article. Good job! I would not say the added historical emphasis is overdone, by any means. By contrast, the original article's so-called History section is grossly deficient, and gives no information about the bridge's origins other than the date.

Some of the specialized terms under "Engineering" (e.g., fender-pier, cantilevered, etc.) could probably benefit from wikilinking, where feasible. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linked, though the definition of "fender-pier" is external. I'm not too happy about that. What else can I try? - Denimadept (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could write an article / stub fender-pier, which may be merited, though no other page links to it and the term doesn't even seem to appear in the rest of wikipedia... Oliphaunt (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A common solution is linking to a Wiktionary entry, if all you can give is a dicdef. Hundreds of articles that contained nothing more than a definition have been transwiki'd there. If the article doesn't exist yet there, you can create it and not need a RS. Firestorm ^Talk 00:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created Fender pier today. Dunno if that's good. - Denimadept (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bit about what they expected to happen as a result of the bridge is neat, but maybe the memorial about Mr. Greeley is too much. Opinion please? - Denimadept (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we can nudge MIT's chapter of Lambda Chi Alpha to finish the job they scanted back in 1958, by posting this article. :-) I think they're allowed to use string this time. Asking a 60+ year old man to do all that again, even assuming he was the same height now as then, would be a bit much. - Denimadept (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the first six pages of the HAER document. I'll have to continue reading the document to see if there's more in there of interest. Besides that, I've still to add the 1986 document which is likely about the rebuild at that time. I hope to get that soon. - Denimadept (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I traded e-mail with the librarian today. She figures to get me the 1986 document by Wednesday. Until then, we can tune the article given what we've got. The section on the 1980s, and any later section, will have to wait on references. - Denimadept (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got enough of the 1986 document to work with and have done so. Now I'm working to get both vintage and current images onto the page. I've made my own current images and am bidding on a 1906 postcard to show the bridge as it was before the 1924 renovations, and incidentally before MIT arrived there. As this card is out of copyright, I can reproduce it for the article. - Denimadept (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found references. One is a book, the other is a series of (out of copyright!) pictures. Given how crowded the location was that day, it seems likely to me that there are many more pictures of this event available if we look. - Denimadept (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

images - Denimadept (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added images I consider fairly critical. I could add more, but I'm not sure they'd add much. I'm still trying to find more recent references to use for the completion dates. The Boston Globe's "search" function is largely useless. Maybe the NYT would be better. - Denimadept (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]