This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
I've twice removed unsourced info from the article, after previously challenging the info at
User talk:Polaron#Bridge info. The editor has not specifically replied at any Talk page. Just now I again removed material from the articlee:
I think those assertions are not adequately supported by sources. I see no explanation to the reader where the "Samson Occom Bridge" name is coming from. And the CT DOT Traffic count site is a general site, not carrying this info. Is it possible to have a more specific reference supporting the actual assertion. I'm not sure if the "1,100 vehicles per day" is encyclopedic enough to mention at all, but I would mind it less if it was actually supported. Do it right Polaron, or not at all, please. --
doncram18:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Hi Doncram. The bridge name and origin of the name is confirmed by one of the photos of the historic marker on the NRHP nomination. The bridge name is also listed in the Historic Bridge Inventory (although mispelled as "Occum"). The traffic count data is in a large document listing all state highways. I will try and make it more specific. Sorry for trying to improve your personal article. --
Polaron |
Talk18:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Edit conflict...and after a new move of article by Polaron. I'm sorry, i didn't realize you were editing right now; i'll pause and come back later when you are done. I would appreciate if you would provide more specific support, yes, thanks. No, it's not my personal article, but you and I have been through this before, too much, where you seemed to have sources which you chose not to share. Obviously the name of the article was challenged on basis that name was not supported; you should not be move-warring and then only grudgingly providing a little support here or there, not in the article itself. --
doncram19:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Doncram asked me to stop by because I took the picture (earlier this year) that currently adorns the page. I don't specifically recall whether or not the sign is still present at the bridge location. I also think I would have remembered if it was there, leading me to suspect it is no longer there. Since the nomination was made when the site was part of the state park, the Mohegans may have decided to remove it when they took over.
I wouldn't make any definitive decisions on how to name the article based on this information. (The bridge is not in a location I pass by, or even near, with any regularity, so I am not likely to return there.) Magic♪piano21:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Doncram, as I mentioned above, the document "Connecticut Historic Bridge Inventory"
[1] uses that name in its entry for this bridge. Also, if you search "Samson Occom Bridge" in the UConn Connecticut History Online site
[2], you get hits for this bridge. Clearly, the name is used to refer to the bridge and this usage does more to flesh out the article rather than the CTDOT bridge ID number. --
Polaron |
Talk13:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)reply
a. prose/copyright: Needs work Generally, I copyright as I go, because this saves time and makes the review go smoother. In this case, however, I feel that the article needs a heavy copy-edit, which I am not going to do. Among the issues that need to be addressed:
The article is exceedingly choppy; it reads as if you had a list of bullet pointed facts, and built paragraphs by turning each one into a separate sentence. Ideas that should flow together aren't together. In your lead, you have a sentence about who built it, then one about construction details, then one about where it is, then another sentance on construction details, and then a sentence about who built it. Why not use sentences on the same area into one, like "It was built in 1936 by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, then known as the Connecticut State Highway Department, as a Works Project Administration program.", or at least group them together?
While it's not quite that bad if you actually count them, it feels like half of the sentences start with the words "The bridge". I know how hard it is to build an article about a proper noun without sounding repetitive, but you need to figure out a way to cut usage of "The bridge" in half.
I believe that your second source is
this. If that's true, you should link to it. Additionally, I think that the title you used isn't the title that they're using.
Thanks for actually finding that! I've added the details and converted it to a template.
b. proper citation use:
c. no original research:
3. Broad in coverage:
a. covers main aspects:
b. focused/on topic:
4. Neutral:
5. Stable:
6. Image use:
a. license/tagging correct:
b. relevant/properly captioned:
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:
"Stone arch bridges rarely require structural rehabilitation, but an alternative solution to rehabilitation exists in the form of a concrete slab imbedded above the arch." - The second half of this needs to be reworded: What exactly is being described? (What is this procedure? Can it be linked to?)
@
Sven Manguard: - I think I resolved it. An alternative solution to structural rehabilitation exists in the form of an imbedded concrete slab which would take the weight off the bridge. I believe this is essentially building a roadway/bridge above the Samson Occom Bridge, retaining the appearance and physical structure without actually bearing the load of traffic. Best I gathered from the text.
ChrisGualtieri (
talk)
20:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)reply
b. MoS compliance: Acceptable
2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable
a. provides references: Acceptable
b. proper citation use: Acceptable
c. no original research: Acceptable
3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable
a. covers main aspects: Acceptable
b. focused/on topic: Acceptable
4. Neutral: Acceptable
5. Stable: Acceptable
6. Image use: Section acceptable
a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable
b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:
a. images that should have
alt texts have them: N/A