Talk:Golden Gate Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Golden Gate Bridge was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

An event in this article is a January 5 selected anniversary

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Popular Culture

This section seems rather silly. You could add every representation of the bridge in any TV show or movie that was set in San Francisco. It should be eliminated or reduced to only particular scenes set on or about the bridge itself. Happywaffle (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Design Section

Final paragraph of the Design section repeats information from the first paragraph(s) regarding Charles Ellis, and presents it as though it had not been brought up previously. Erendwyn (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ferry service?

Why is there a decent-sized chunk-o-text about the ferry service in the history of the Golden Gate Bridge? It might be worth a passing mention, but only a mention... this article *is* about the bridge and not a history of SF bay crossings, right? Any objections if I remove it? WikiLimey (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite article

I'm considering rewriting the article soon (next few days, when I have a chance) to incorporate some the still-unimplemented 2005 peer review comments, and to improve organization. So hang on to your hats! And please suggest anything you think needs attention.Wikidemo 00:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I started by renaming, blocking, and arranging major sections. It's clear that some of the information is out of place and does not logically flow, or is contradictory, so some of the info will be have to moved among sections. I'll do that soon. This also makes the holes in the coverage more obvious. There's little discussion of the settings, finance/economics, management, or physical description of the bridge. Although trivia should be discouraged it might be worthwhile to describe how the bridge affects culture in San Francisco, how it is perceived in the world, tourism, etc. This all messes up the image placement - the images will have to be moved around, but maybe later once the overall text has settled. Wikidemo 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a good opportunity to archive this page. ☑ SamuelWantman 03:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I might need to see if there are any strong concerns there but I can just go back in the history. I'm taking an overnight break now but I'll be tidying up afterwards. In some cases it gets a little worse before it gets better, e.g. my preliminary sections on the bridge structure and specifications. Those need to be filled out, but we really ought to have some prose description beyond the infobox of the bridge's basic structure. Wikidemo 04:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The Art section has some peacock language -- and the puzzling assertion that the bridge is more beautiful in Oct.-Nov.? Why? Unimaginative Username 06:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This might be because October and November is a period when fog is less likely to obscure the bridge. It is always prettier when you can actually see it. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Raises the interesting philosophical question: If a beautiful woman walks through a forest where no one can see her, is she not beautiful? ok, j/k -- but unless the fog is there 24/7 the other ten months of the year (it isn't; been there, done that), the assertion isn't necessarily true. Your explanation makes sense, but would zero-knowledge readers understand that? Regards, Unimaginative Username 06:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the art section is fluffly. Whether true or not it is just praise, opinion, and judgment, not encyclopedic stuff. If it's still there when I get to it I'll try to replace it with something more authoritative and sourced. If you find any good sources discussing that, please do add some material there. Wikidemo 10:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks -- that's what I was trying to say in my OP on the topic. Unimaginative Username 06:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How come?

There are so many petty vandals all of a sudden? Do vandals have a watch list? BTW, I've just expanded the part of the history section, though I still need to add more detail, fact-checking, and sources to the design and construction parts. After that I'll be going through some other sections one by one and probably adding a couple. So if anyone things I'm going about it wrong or need some pointers, now is the time. I'm not good enough to bring an article to featured article status all by myself but maybe this can be a good article (GA) again, and a more complete resource for the world to know about the bridge.Wikidemo 18:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Gate may be the second longest suspension bridge. The Mackinaw Bridge in Michigan takes the cake for the longest in the Western Hemisphere! 165.20.104.30 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Gate has the second longest suspension bridge span in the US. The length of the longest span is the customary way to rank suspension bridges. This should be made clear by using the term suspension bridge span whenever discussing ranking. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Picture

A picture in the Aesthetics section is overlaying some text. Does anyone know how to fix this? SkipSmith (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a shot at a fix. The problem was the pictures on the left and right are placed on the same line, and the picture on the right was pushed down past the start of the section by the larger picture above it, pushing down the picture on the left over some text. I moved the picture on the left down to the next paragraph. SkipSmith (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Just finished some pretty extensive style fixes with the layout. The major problems, like text trapping, are fixed. Also did a lot of other style fixes which dealt with things like citation fixes, spacing, and what not. Roguegeek (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated vandalsim

I'm getting pretty sick of the repeated vandalism of this page by IP-only editors. For that reason I requested and was granted a five day semi-protection status for the page which stops anonymous editors changing the page. This isn't an ideal solution but five days peace and quiet from the constant anti-vandal work on this page might be worth it. When the protected period expires it will be interesting to see if vandalism returns to previous levels. If it does then I'd appreciate other editors support in requesting protection again. --TimTay (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Interfearence with the Southern Pacific Railroad

Southern Pacific Railroad was interfering with the area that they were using to build the bridge. So they had to delay the process, in which they then had to go to get files allow them the land.

[edit] Slight physics discrepency

In the suicide section, it states that the person would be going approximately 75 mi/h or 121 km/h when they hit the water after falling for approximately 4 seconds from a 260 ft (79.25 m) drop. Using basic physics, the 4 seconds time is easily verifiable by the equation x = v0t + (gt2)/2, where x is the distance, v0 is the initial velocity, g is acceleration on Earth for a free falling body, and t is time (comes out to about 4.02 seconds). However, the speed is off by the formula v = v0 + gt. The initial velocity is 0, making it v = gt. Plugging in the known 4.02 seconds for t and 9.8 m/s2 for g, this comes out to about 39.41 m/s, which is equal to 141.88 km/h, or approximately 88 mi/h (87.95 mi/h).--十八 06:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Air resistance. That's probably why it is 121 km/h rather than 141.88 km/h. 140.247.41.252 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] History of the Name

The current revision gives an unsatisfying account of the name "Golden Gate Bridge". http://goldengatebridge.org/research/facts.php#Name states: "The Golden Gate Strait is the entrance to the San Francisco Bay from the Pacific Ocean. The strait is approximately three-miles long by one-mile wide with currents ranging from 4.5 to 7.5 knots. It is generally accepted that the strait was named "Chrysopylae", or Golden Gate, by John C. Fremont, Captain, topographical Engineers of the U.S. Army circa 1846. It reminded him of a harbor in Instanbul named Chrysoceras or Golden Horn." I can't find satisfactory references to back this up. Anyone? johndbeatty (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)