Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the I-35W Mississippi River bridge article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Good article I-35W Mississippi River bridge has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7
About archives

Contents

[edit] Victims

The article now says that all the victims were not recovered. I haven't seen that in a source. Is that true?--Appraiser 23:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It is my fault, just bad English and got distracted. -Susanlesch 00:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I thought maybe I had missed some news.--Appraiser 03:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10th Avenue Bridge "currently" closed?

The article still says the 10th Avenue Bridge is closed. It was open on August 31st. I crossed it. So did a very large number of other people. Did it get closed again? Michael Hardy 03:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

...and now I've updated it. WCCO's web site is still saying only that it was reopened Friday morning, not that it's been closed since then. Michael Hardy 03:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It's open, for sure. And likely to stay that way. I think they justed wanted to get various ducks in a row (such as building the high fence) before re-opening it in time for the U's fall session. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topic focus

Is this article about the bridgeor the collapse?? If it's about the bridge, 3 entire sections ("collapse", "aftermath" and "memorial") should probably be split into I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse. If it's about the collapse, the article needs to be moved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend redirecting a "collapse" article to this one. Without the collapse there's not much to write about. This isn't the Golden Gate Bridge, it's just another interstate highway bridge. There's nothing really special or historical about the bridge other than the collapse. You can talk about its design, but that ties directly to the collapse discussion. There's no point in creating a separate article, as I see it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
For those interested in prior discussion of this topic, see Talk:I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge/Archive_1#Needing_its_own_article. I agree with BB; design and maintenance of the bridge cannot be segregated from collapse. Kablammo 17:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The article on this bridge existed long before the collapse. So did individual articles on all bridges crossing the Mississippi. But of course it was much shorter. Michael Hardy 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So is the bridge, now. :\ Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The last article prior to the date of the collapse [1] it had been a little over a month since it was last updated, and had 2,000 bytes. Now it has 93,000. The one interesting thing about the original article is reading about the bridge knowing what happened to it. Disregarding everthing else, the original article would have to be re-written in the past tense. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the bridge and its collapse are essentially the same topic, so I wouldn't be in favor of breaking the article up now. I do think that the "disaster declarations" section should be pared down, though, and limited to declarations about the bridge. The other declarations made due to the 2007 Midwest flooding and the drought are off-topic, even though they occurred concurrently.--Appraiser 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure the article could be pared a bit now that the flurry is over. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Circeus, good question. I added another sentence or two, sorry about that. OK with me to cut anything I added to this article. For an FA it's not very much too long. Whatever the original editors want I would support. -Susanlesch 06:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reactions from civil engineers section

I really feel like the section called "Reactions from civil engineers" seems a little out of place. There are enough civil engineers out there that a few of them having an opinion or making a comment about the collapse isn't really all that special. It just looks like we wanted some extra commentary, especially earlier on when there wasn't much to say about the investigation. I'd like to remove the section, but I'll wait for a while for comment here. kmccoy (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer they stay at least until NTSB releases their findings. The folks quoted are serious people with serious positions that related directly to what they are commenting on. As experts, their opinions add some context to the collapse that goes beyond the pontification of the general public and thus adds value to this entry. Once the NTSB releases their findings, I think that would be a better time to consider their removal. Theflyer 14:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should lose it, or collapse it into one sentence discussing early speculation about causes. All of the sources date from the first few days after the collapse. It is speculation, obtained in a typical journalistic rush to get experts to comment on possible causes. Another example (no longer mentioned in the article) was when a Twin Cities television station took an expert on a chopper ride above the scene and he pointed out where the failure began, on the same day that the NTSB announced that it was ruling out that location as the origin of the failure.(Compare [2] with [3]) Educated or partially-informed speculation is still speculation. It inclusion here, in a separate section, gives undue weight to it. Kablammo 16:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have now deleted that section. kmccoy (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reaching GA

Hello. Some of the news sources are disappearing so it might be a good time to firm up citations. I have a couple days coming up and can format references. Are the cite templates ok to use here? I've been using them but am not sure if others do. -Susanlesch 10:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the citations. I have found that the MPR links are durable over time and I suspect that most of the news of the bridge was covered by them. I like to use the cite templates too, although I have noticed that they add quite a bit to the load time.--Appraiser 14:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
If durable links cannot be found as replacement citations for dead links, I suggest leaving the dead link citations until the Internet Archive processes and posts information from this period. I would suspect that many of the dead links could be redirected to the archive at that time. Even as dead links, a serious researcher could recover this information by leveraging the information in the citation. Theflyer 15:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi. Someone kindly nominated this before I got to the citations, and it truly has come a long way. I will remove the faulty link in the infobox but not do too much to lose the stability requirement. Do you see anything else that needs doing? Have to say, nice job, all! -Susanlesch 02:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to reviewer of new nomination: Page length is just 36 kB (5849 words) when stripped down to the prose. Not out of line with WP:LENGTH. MrZaiustalk 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead-in - Prez/Drought/Emergency Funds

I was watching the Sox/Twins (Go SOX!) when they mentioned the bridge (I-35W on Twins helmets (notable... probably not)). Anywho, I came to read the article for the latest info and found the lead-in paragraph starting with President Bush very confusing. OK, he, and a lot of other people went there (not sure needed in lead-in, probably should be moved to 'Public Events'). Then it talks about flooding and droughts, seemingly off topic. Then 4 federal disaster declarations, ok, but that's stretching it for this column, but should be moved to 'Disaster Declarations'. But what really confused me was that final sentence. I have no idea what its trying to say about the bridge (after all, that's this article), and the eference story it redirects to mentions nothing about the bridge and/or any moneys available to victims/affected people. Plus, the lead-in info usually connects to more data given in the body, which I don't see. Can someone with knowledge disassemble that whole paragraph, moving data to the proper places in the article body. Also remove any irrelevant flood/drought stuff, or site a better source and reword the sentence to how this applies to the bridge (sorry for the lengthy talk). THANKS! 68.107.242.166 02:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, at least on the Flooding part. I've made an attempt at improving it. IMO, too much of the lead was devoted to the flooding, an event completely unrelated to the bridge collapse. Gopher backer 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style

I find the writing of dates as 2007-08-08 to be confusing and unwieldy. Was this done for a reason? I'm not clear on what the WP policy is, but it looks ugly. Aep 11:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi, Aep. May I ask what is your setting in the "Date and time" tab in My preferences (at the top of every page)? Registered users should see their personal choice (also explained in the Manual of Style). For example, I see "DD MonthSpelledOut YYYY" everywhere but someone else will see "MonthSpelledOut DD, YYYY" everywhere. Whose preference would these best be changed to? I use ISO to type as it takes only 10 keystrokes no matter what month but can change them all. -Susanlesch 11:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

  1. Images: Pass
  2. Broadness: Pass
  3. Factually accurate: Pass
  4. Stability: Pass
  5. NPOV: Pass
  6. Well-written: Pass

Good job on the article. I like the falling animation. Pass. Mitch32contribs 18:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Construction begins

This is such an important article in an area outside my area of knowledge, I'm reluctant to be bold. According to this article[4], construction of the replacement bridge has begun.StreamingRadioGuide 00:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I like it how "post 9/11 techniques saving lives" makes the summary with 2 sources

Manufacturing consent even in an Encyclopedia. What happened to critical minds? Yes, there are sources saying many terrible things, it doesn't make them true, or viable for an encyclopedia. --Leladax (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • My understanding is that several million dollars were spent in the metro area on training for a building collapse in reaction to the 9/11 tragedies. That specific training was cited by emergency workers as having been helpful after the bridge collapse. A command center, administrative structure, and communication systems were in place fairly quickly which evidently aided in identifying victims and missing persons. The sentence in question could be improved, but I think the gist is significant.--Appraiser (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have a few problems with the article

I've got a few problems with this article. First, it credits Sheriff Rich Stanek with requesting Navy divers during a meeting with the president. Apparently Stanek has been claiming he did this for several months now. He recently had a DVD "training video" made where he repeats this claim. The other day, the Chief of Police in Minneapolis, Tim Dolan, took exception to this claim. On the Mpls StPaul magazine blog there is [5] an excerpt of the email Dolan sent to the Mayor, noting that he, Dolan, requested the Navy divers. Not Stanek.

Another problem is the description of the school bus on the collapsed bridge which terms it "precarious". The wording is bad. The situation for those on the bus was "precarious" in the sense that they were at risk from the truck next to them that was on fire, but "resting precariously against the guardrail" does not accurately reflect the objective truth that the bus' physical position on the bridge post-collapse was not precarious at all. It was in no danger of falling or tumbling from the collapsed roadway. In fact, it was sitting there pretty solidly, albeit at an unusual attitude (not altitude).

The third problem I have is the references to 9-11. There is mentioned in the second paragraph how "post-9/11 techniques and technology", citations 6 and 7, may have saved lives. The link for citation 7 is broken (article removed) and citation 6 is an article written by Bruce Schneier, where he says that funding for new radio systems, in the wake of 9-11, made it possible for all the rescue personnel from the different agencies and departments to communicate. New radios that use common frequencies. That's a whole lot less than what's implied by "post-9/11 techniques and technology". I have a real problem with that. It should be more specific. Furthermore, it's not clear how those new radios may have saved lives. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

Along with number 3 is the other mention of "terrorism" aspects. Everyone knows this bridge and its victims weren't afflicted by any form of terrorism. I don't think it even bears mentioning. Might as well add how it wasn't brought down by aliens in flying saucers, either. It's not relevant. Unless you listen to, again, Sheriff Stanek, who says that was one of his concerns in the minutes following the collapse. Too much reliance on what Stanek said gives me pause to wonder about the neutral point of view of this article as a whole. The Sheriff of Hennepin County, Minnesota, is an elected official and politicians of all stripes - including those who wear a uniform - are not good sources of factual information unless there are corroborating sources. Sheriff Stanek did a good job on August 1st, but he claims way too much credit for some things and his credibility has its limits when he seeks to toot his own horn in the aftermath to make himself look good. Some people undoubtedly thought that perhaps terrorism was responsible for the collapse of the bridge. But it wasn't, and even mentioning it seems superfluous and unecessary. Why must irrational fear of terrorism color every single event in the news?

I just signed up for a wiki account and will not be making any changes to the article. Not yet. In the coming weeks I may do that, but I didn't want to jump right in and start making changes. I may in the future. There have been reports recently of government astroturfing of Wikipedia articles. I wonder if this article has been victimized by that to a certain degree. As a disclaimer, I do not live in Minnesota nor do I have any connection to any of Stanek's opponents in elections. He's not even up for re-election for another 3 years. I have no personal axe to grind against the man, but he seems to be the original source of several bits of misinformation in the main article. It should be fixed. JeffTracy (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I did read or hear somewhere about how the metro area first-responders had intensive training (post-9/11) on how to handle a major building collapse. The training included command structure, the quick assembly of a command center, coordinated communications, and dispersion of victims to various hospitals. It's not proven that any of these protocols saved lives, but news reports DID claim that the training was useful and appropriate for the bridge tragedy. If I get a chance, I'll try to find a citable source that talks about these aspects of the event.--Appraiser (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The article could use some tightening; there is no reason to mention who called the Navy divers. That point is trivial; this is not a place to award "credit" or even discuss whether it is due. Kablammo (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split the article?

This article seems to be mostly about the collapse, instead of the bridge itself. The collapse section needs to be moved to a different article.  — Noah¢s (Talk) 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the collapse info interfering with the bridge info? Does the rest of the article need to have much more information added after the collapse section? -- SEWilco (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the mix of information about the pre-collapse and post-collapse is appropriate. For comparison, look at RMS Titanic. A large portion of the article relates to its final hours and aftermath.--Appraiser (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
About the only event to make this bridge notable is the collapse. Without info on the collapse and its aftermath, this article would be a bare stub with little possibility for expansion. There's no dire need to split it, unless you favor two deficient articles over a complete, well-crafted overview. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed before on several occasions. There is no need to split it. Moreover the history of the bridge and its maintenance may well be relevant to the collapse, and the failure of the bridge likely was the culmination of a process rather than a discrete event. Two separate articles would have substantial overlap. Kablammo (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make is that the article is titled "1-35W Mississippi River bridge", but it only has few sections on the bridge itself: (Site history, construction, etc.). The majority of the article is about the collapse of the bridge: (Recovery, rescue, investigation, effects of collapse, etc.). I think it should be moved to "2007 1-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse" (or something like that) and include a background section similar to that of the 2003 Chicago balcony collapse article.  — Noah¢s (Talk) 00:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Split This article was split once before on the new bridge at St. Anthony Falls (35W) Bridge, however after the split that article hasn't really had any major updates for months after the split off as it was left alone by itself with outdated information. I feel if we split this article again the page on the collapse would meet the same fate. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 13:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Split for the reasons stated by Anetode and Kablammo. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Split since without the collapse, the article would collapse to about a paragraph. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please split this article--it is an absolutely insane 90KB. I'm on a cable modem and it can barely handle this thing--my computer freezes for 30 seconds trying to load it. A separate article on the collapse would be ideal--the collapse as an event is more notable than the bridge itself anyway. You could have two articles that would be relatively long, but not unbearable, as opposed to this monster. Everyking (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, you'd have one article that's about 2K and another that's about 88K. It's a bridge. Big deal. Without the collapse story, there is no article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The article has lots of background information about the bridge. The sections "Location", "Site history", "Design and construction" (with subsection "Black ice") and "Maintenance and inspection" would not need to be covered in the collapse article except in brief summarized form. There are other ways this article could be split, but I think that's the most logical one. Let me point out that at 90KB this article has no room for expansion whatsoever, so by keeping it as one article the potential for growth is eliminated. If it was split, then you could have the collapse article, and then if that grew too long you could split various section off from that one as much as needed. Everyking (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
        • If you think I'm exaggerating, check out what the page looked like on its last entry prior to August 1. [6] It is literally 2K - or actually 2,083 bytes. Most of the detail you mention is only in the article because of the collapse. Otherwise, why bother with all that? Prior to August 1, the most interesting unique information they could come up with was that it spans the river. Also, how old is your computer? Mine is several years old, although I do have Comcast high-speed, and it took 5 seconds or less to load the page. I don't think it's fair to expect wikipedia to cater to the lower echelons of computer technology. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
          • It seems to me that all those sections pertain to primarily to the bridge itself, not the collapse. Of course it's relevant to the collapse, but it wouldn't need to be included in a collapse article in full. My computer is about four years old; I certainly don't consider it on the "lower echelons of computer technology". I assume the article would be virtually inaccessible to anyone without a relatively recent, quality computer, or anyone on dialup. And considering that all we have to do to cater to people on the "lower echelons of computer technology" is split this thing, why shouldn't we? We don't have to do anything that causes us a disadvantage in order to make this article properly accessible. It has long been accepted on Wikipedia that articles should be split up long before they reach 90KB. Everyking (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
            • That info was not in the article before, nor would it be now, without the collapse. So why is it taking half a minute to load? You've got a bottleneck somewhere in your local configuration. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
              • And the slippery slope is that the article about the collapse would necessarily have to restate much of the info that's in the original article. Further, why would anyone bother coming to this article except to read about the collapse? This is not exactly the Golden Gate Bridge we're talking about here. It's just another of thousands of mundane, boring bridges in the world. Without the collapse, there is no article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
                • You think the article on the bridge shouldn't talk about its location, the history of the site, its design and construction, etc. if not for the collapse? So if the collapse had never happened, the article should not cover those things...that's what you think? And the bridge is still notable without the collapse; it was a large, important bridge in a major city.
                • Anyway, the alternative to splitting out content is to do something about the images, because they're clearly the primary factor in making it so long. Are all these free images? The ones that aren't free, if any, can go. The gallery is also not necessary (although nice to have, if we had space for it) and can be removed. Everyking (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
                  • The bare-bones information (2K worth) that was in the article prior to August 1 is likely all that would still be there, were it not for the collapse. If the photos are your problem (and all or most of them were taken by wikipedia editors, so they're free), then maybe they could be moved to wikimedia or some such. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
                    • The question of whether or not it would have been added if not for the collapse is irrelevant; without a doubt it should be there. The photos are not my problem; I'd vastly prefer splitting the article in accordance with summary style and keeping the images, but if there's too much opposition to that, then the images are expendable. Everyking (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the load time is mostly due to the templates used for citations. All well-cited articles using templates take a long time. I like the quantity of photographs and I suspect first-time readers do too.--Appraiser (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
No they don't. How many other articles are 90KB? Everyking (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
How can you pretend to speak for first-time readers? Regardless, if it's the citations that are the problem, moving the pictures won't help, and the citations megillah is required by wikipedia; kind of a case of wikipedia being hoist on its own petard. One way to test the theory would be to temporarily copy the gallery to the talk page, and see how long the talk page takes to load. Then remove that and copy the article in (minus the photos). Get timings for both, and you can isolate where the problems are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to his second sentence. Anyway, I doubt that an article of this length can't be 90KB based on primarily on text, but if it is, then that's all the more reason to split. Everyking (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] The size of the actual text, inclusive of titles and photo captions, is under 5900 words. Kablammo (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The article, prior to 8/1/07, had barely 100 words of actual prose text, plus the usual info box stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: how many articles? 90K is common for an FA today. Re: photos, we went through a rather extensive though layman's study of load time (you can find it in the archives on the Minneapolis, Minnesota talk page). Templates are what are slowing this down. Remove reflist (in which other templates are expanding) for starters, not the photos. I am really sorry but it is not every day that Wikipedia has access to quality images as are here, some by Wikipedia editors, some by semi-pros who gave them away on Flickr. Not to mention the photos donated to The Associated Press (AP) that appeared all over the world because they are absolutely of the highest quality. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If templates are the problem, they can always be changed into manual formating. I never use templates anyway; I think they're a nuisance. The rule of thumb is that one shouldn't change templates into manual formating or vice versa, and respect others' preferences, but if it's making the article intolerably long then we could make an exception. I still think splitting is a better solution, however.
I'd like you to point me to some of these 90KB FAs. That's a pretty severe violation of style guidelines, and I find it hard to believe an article could pass at such a size without being split up. I do remember one case of an FA that passed at around 80KB, but it was considered exceptional and was let through on the grounds that the article was so good that it would be like destroying a work of art to split it (and even so I think I objected to that one). I figured I'd look at some of the recent FAs of the day, just to see: 2007 UEFA Champions League Final, 40 KB; Trembling Before G-d (below the recommended maximum, which I think is still 32KB, so it doesn't tell me the size in the edit screen); Boshin War, 48KB; Oregon State Capitol, 35 KB. None of these gave me any trouble loading, and they are all reasonably sized. Everyking (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose split Many of the bytes are code for notes and infoboxes, the article isn't that lengthy. BTW: That gallery could be put out, for that we have Commons and that eats up the capacity one user reclaimed above. --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While it would not reduce kb much, the article could use a good copyedit. There is a lot of information on other bridges, names, etc. that probably are not needed. I will undertake to copyedit it, section by section, so my changes can easily be reverted if someone feels they go too far.
I agree that gallery can be separate. Kablammo (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose split I think people come to this page for info about the split. I think over time a split may make sense, but not now.Dw31415 (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, you mean for info about the collapse, right? --207.176.159.90 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Although, technically, the bridge split into several pieces. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NTSB January Finding

Previous editors drew the conclusion that the NTSB said that the thinness of the gusset plates caused the collapse. Careful reading of the press release and interim report clearly state that the NTSB has not come to that conclusion yet. Added some details from the report. TODO: need help cleaning up the citations. Should they be repeated after every non-consecutive sentence?Dw31415 (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New resources

The NTSB has posted documents from its investigation on its website:

[7]

25 pages of photographs, including some excellent aerial photographs of the collapsed bridge:

[8]

As the NTSB is a federal agency these should be in the public domain.

Placement of additional weight on weakest parts of span just before collapse:

[9]

Kablammo (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why the 10th Ave. Bridge was closed

Actually I think they closed the 10th Ave. bridge to keep the news media from filming the act of pulling bodies out of the river from a close vantage-point. It was reopened shortly after the human recovery was complete.--Appraiser (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there were several reasons: a) respect for the dead, as you said (not just from media but from other gawkers -- media was allowed on the bridge at controlled times); b) It was used as a staging area during the rescue (e.g. there was a helicopter parked on it for a time early after the collapse), c) They needed to reconfigure the bridge for gawkers, since there was no walkway on the side facing the I-35W bridge. They closed off some of the lanes, added Jersey barriers, and created a temporary "viewing area". This took some time, and obviously wasn't a priority until the recovery operation was complete. --Rehcsif (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Basically, they had to get the bridge open by September 1 to acoommodate the U traffic, and they took their time about it, i.e. they didn't open it any sooner than they absolutely had to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

The other article might be replaced by a sentence or two here.--Appraiser (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And with a simple redirect from that other article to this one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
For the benefit of future readers of the archives, the proposal is to merge 9340 into this article. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, with a link from 9340 to this one, in case someone tries to find it under that designation for some reason. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that merger should happen - 9340 doesn't have much information that isn't in the 35W article. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any information in the 9340 article that isn't already here? I'm not really seeing it, but I didn't comb through this article to verify. I'd say simply replacing that page with a redirect here might be the easiest way to 'merge'. --Rehcsif (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If the information is entirely duplcicated, then I don't think a merger discussion is needed. Just replace the content of the one with a redirect to the other. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Redirect. As the 9340 article is written, it isn't conveying any additional information about the structure, but some people may search for this bridge based on its bridge file number. On it's own, before the collapse, bridge 9340 would most definitely be notable from a structural engineering standpoint due to its magnitude, but this article does not properly convey it. The collapse article goes into sufficient detail about the structure itself to replace any information in the 9340 article. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Page redirected. I saved the text of the article for now in case anyone wants to copy something. - Denimadept (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The text is, of course, always available in the history as well. --Rehcsif (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Good point. - Denimadept (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Condensing and shortening

I have been copyediting the article to shorten it. It contained (and continues to contain) a lot of detail which may not be necessary. The load time of the page is very long, probably due mainly to the images (gallery now removed) and to the template calls. I'm not going to take the time to convert the citation templates to shorter versions, but there appears to be a lot of duplication of footnotes.

If any feel I took a chainsaw rather than a scapel to their work, add your items back in. But this is an article about the bridge and its collapse. The article is likely to grow further once the NTSB finishes its work. Kablammo (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

After reductions, text without TOC and images is now 16 pages, ~ 5,500 words, and ~ 35,500 characters incl. spaces. Kablammo (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I like your copyediting. I miss the gallery though. I was showing off the article to some out-of-town relatives and they were interested in looking at all the pictures. On another article some of us did some testing of load times and determined that the templates were more significant than thumbnail photographs in slowing the load time. So - my vote is to restore the gallery.--Appraiser (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I won't object to restoring it. One of the problems with a link to commons is that the casual reader will not know what that means. If there were a clearer message box (or whatever you call those critters) plainly stating that additional images are available at commons here, or something to that effect, the loss of a gallery would not be as great. Here's a tool to analyze download speed: [10] (insert the article's url), which may indicate what causes slow speed. Kablammo (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)