Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BP Pedestrian Bridge/archive2

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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008 [1].

BP Pedestrian Bridge

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger
previous FAC (21:59, 26 July 2008)


This is one of the better articles at WP:CHIFTD, which is about to be promoted to WP:GT. I have addressed most of the issues at WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy's comments based on this version

  • Date in image caption shouldn't be wikilinked (MOSNUM)
  • "is an American girder bridge" - doubt you need to say it's American; you say it's from Chicago later this sentence, which should make it clear enough
    • This is a big adjustment for me. Not only am I now suppose to remove United States following Chicago, Illinois, but also I am now suppose to remove American too. I will do it, but I am getting uncomfortable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first Gehry-designed bridge to have been realized." - is realized some jargon with which I'm not familiar, or would "the first Gehry-designed bridge to be completed" have the same meaning?
  • 3rd paragraph of lead; cut repeption of "The bridge" (happens a bit in the 2nd paragraph too)
  • "Gehry had hoped to avoid the visible center column." - um.... no idea what that's referring to, images don't help (hinder, rather)
  • "might not have been able to be as sleek as it is" --> "might not have been as sleek as it is", and (preferably) quote Kamin's original words
  • Not sure what relevance the Controversies section images have to that section
  • "some of the bridge's foibles became apparent. The bridge has had..." - repetition

Giggy (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as I have no other concerns. Giggy (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recurring items on repeat noms that reviewers should be catching: WP:ALLCAPS, WP:NBSP (on times of day, for example), fixes needed throughout. I left samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The first paragra of the controversy section needs a ref. Also, is there some way you can merge the "credits" section into the infobox? ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contextually, it does not really need a ref given the following paragraphs are cited. I generally like to have a citation per paragraph, but this para seems to be an exception to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think if this were a building there would be parameters to merge the credits as you suggest, but for a bridge you can not do so as I understand the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Leaning towards oppose at the moment, mainly but not entirely on prose concerns.

  • In the lead, you say that Gehry agreed to take on the design after the Pritzker family funded the pavilion. The source you cite says only "The Pritzker family is underwriting his work". I don't see any other support for the phrasing in the article; do you have another source?
    • I added a better ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I don't think that does it. The problem is that your phrasing asserts that Gehry took the work after the Pritzker family underwrote it, but the source doesn't say that -- it might equally be that he took it on and later the Pritzkers underwrote it, as far as one can tell from the sources. In addition, your phrasing implies (though it doesn't directly state) that Gehry took it on specifically because it had been funded, whereas that may not have been part of his decision. I'd suggest just rephrasing to avoid these implications. Mike Christie (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some prose problems. Examples from the lead follow, but there are prose issues elsewhere. I think you need to get a good wordsmith to make a pass through this.
    • "Because of its curving form, the BP Bridge is described as snakelike": too wordy; just describe it as "snakelike" or "snaking" in the lead-in to the next sentence. I see from the section on aesthetics that this is probably intended as an abbreviated reference to that discussion; that would be OK but if so please rephrase it so that the context is clearly an aesthetic analysis rather than just a passing likeness that has been commented on.
    • "Designed to bear a heavy load without structural problems caused by its own weight" is clumsily phrased.
    • Repetition of "aesthetic" later in that sentence.
    • Last paragraph of the lead: "The bridge ..." followed by "The footbridge ..." reads oddly.
    • I think "a concealed box girder design" would read more naturally than "the concealed [etc.]".
    • Surely you mean fingerprints, not footprints?
  • The first pair of pictures looks a little strange to me; the perspectives look odd juxtaposed like that. I think the problem is that both have a vanishing point above the picture. I'm not sure what you could do about this, but you might consider separating them. The other juxtaposed images later in the article don't have this problem.
  • The comment about Gehry's prior bridge designs never having been built seems misplaced near the end of the preliminary plans section. It would be better placed either in a background description of his qualifications (i.e. the first paragraph of that section), or as context for criticism of his selection, if there was any. Placed where it is, after the description of the unapproved design, it implies there was criticism, but doesn't say it.
  • I think the article might benefit from a map view -- I don't know Chicago's topography at all well, and went to Google maps to see just where this was located. A view with Cloud Gate at the left and the lake just offscreen to the right was very helpful to me in visualizing the relative locations of some of the landmarks the article mentions. This is just a suggestion, however, since the photo you have at the top of the article is a very good overview of the bridge's shape and location.
    • Would a map like the Millennium Park map with an x on the location of the bridge suffice?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That's about the right scale, but it doesn't have any street names on it. I won't oppose on this point, so I would suggest that you don't add a map unless you can find or make a good clear one that clearly locates the bridge within the park, and (ideally) the park in Chicago. Not needed for FA. Mike Christie (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a bit overlinked. Examples include screw, parking garage, rot, stainless steel and hardwood, just from one small section.
  • The sentence about the bridge being closed till 7 a.m. after a Tori Amos concert is sourced to a newspaper piece that doesn't mention anything about the outrage over deck chairs, or that that was the cause of the closure. I haven't gone through and checked every source; I only clicked through to four or five, and I'm a bit concerned that two of five don't seem to quite support what the article says. Could you verify that the wording in the article really is supported by your sources?
  • I'd introduce Gilfoyle when you first mention him; the reader has no idea who Gilfoyle is when you say "Gilfoyle notes that ...".
-- Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 16 October 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/BP_Pedestrian_Bridge/archive2&oldid=1223716476"