Talk:Fort Steuben Bridge

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fort Steuben Bridge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Fort Steuben Bridge has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 21, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Ohio / West Virginia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).
	West Virginia portal This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as Low-importance).

Additional sources

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

First, I think the ref I've named odot1 has more stuff in it for people who can read it better than I can. Second, the ODOT site I found it on has a LOT more potential stuff for someone who is interested in combing through it. I might do some of that myself. - Denimadept (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The whole collection of plans: http://www.historicbridges.org/ohio/fortsteuben/plans.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.179.128 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fort Steuben Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 17:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Going to review this over this week.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 17:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

You probably should tell the cost of the toll.

Good point, found cost in 1940.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Improvements to the bridge were made in 1956." What type of improvements?

Snippet I picked up doesn't say, all I could find was that improvements were made then!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ref 10 is cited improperly. See {{Cite press release}}.

It's not essential though is it, even citation templates aren't compulsory. Perhaps User:ChrisGualtieri could address that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ref 5 is missing a few details. The Ohio Good Roads Federation wrote the book.

Publisher added, couldn't find any more details in google books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

"appropriation bill for the Department of Transportation mentioned" Optional, you should change Department of Transportation -> United States Department of Transportation, so it would not be confused for ODOT.

Article's going on hold. Happy two-year anniversary of the demolition!—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 03:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

United States Department of Transportation was linked anyway but I piped it. Should be OK now @CycloneIsaac:. All addressed I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Other than that one citation (I'll fix it), the article looks fine, passing!—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 23:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Dr. Blofeld and CycloneIsaac! Been really busy as of late with life, thanks for polishing it up some more. This article was something that I am not too major of a contributor, but I was asked to help work on it and I'm glad its a GA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. If you can get this to GA, we might have a Good topic.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 02:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, let's start working on it. - Denimadept (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Additional sources

GA Review