Talk:Waldo-Hancock Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Waldo-Hancock Bridge appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 4th May, 2006.

	This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of bridges on Wikipedia. Please feel free to join us.

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Maine may be able to help!

Contents 1 citations 2 so cheap they built two... 3 "It was one of the first two bridges..." 4 structurae link is not "dead"

[edit] citations

It,s mostly about properly inserting Ext.links in the footnotes and moving the section below the footnotes. Refs als needs moving after punctuation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 19:58, 3 May 2006.

Can you elaborate please. I'm not sure what you're talking about exactly. Clarification might be good. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] so cheap they built two...

so what happened to the factoid they quoted on the main page? something about the bridge coming in so far under budget that they were able to build a whole other bridge with the money saved. Right now, the article just says that the bridge came in under budget. YggdrasilsRoot

Are you sure? Looking at the Construction section, I see "The Waldo-Hancock Bridge was noted at the time for its economy of design and construction. It cost far less than had been appropriated by the State Highway Commission, which enabled the construction of a second bridge between Verona Island and Bucksport." On an unrelated note, that paragraph is too similar to the source and needs rewording to avoid copyright issues. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The source in question is WP:PD (HAER) as the reference clearly shows. Therefore there are no copyvio issues whatever. Stylistically, it could be rewritten if desired, but there is no actual need. If I get a chance I'll try to find more info on the second bridge. Terraserver shows it to be a rather mundane non suspender though (suspenders at high res on terraserver have clear towers visible in the images) so there may not be too much available. I haven't actually searched though. ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I was about to ask about that. I reverted my attempt at a rewrite. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "It was one of the first two bridges..."

Why not just say "the second bridge"? Yes, I agree that you can't consider it "a first" in that regard then, but that whole sentence is so blatently contorted. -- Ch'marr 15:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they were built concurrently (IIRC.. certianly both in 1931 anyway) so it's difficult to establish which was first; was it first proposed? first started? First cables installed? First opened? First dedicated? I don't have enough chrono info on construction timelines to say for sure which one was first in any of those areas, except dedication... St Johns was earlier in the year. So going "one of the first two" is a bit convoluted, true, but a good compromise. Also, as I pointed out to Sam, that's not my wording, it's the wording of the HAER historian, Katherine Larson Farnham. But please, keeping all that in mind, give it a go if you can change it for the better, because that would be swell! ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] structurae link is not "dead"

To the anon who removed this link: [1] it's not dead.... further the Structurae entry was a major source of data used in the article, Structurae is perhaps the preeminent bridge DB extant. I'd appreciate it if the link was not removed again without discussion here on the talk page. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)