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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:51, 26 April 2009 [1].

Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula

[edit]
Nominator(s): ErgoSum88 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think that users will find this article both interesting and well-sourced. ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Changed 1914->1913 and determined->estimated, these were honest mistakes. As far as the 1987 nytimes article, I could find no other source for how many bridges collapse each year. And after all, this figure is an estimate which I can imagine varies widely from year to year. As far as there being any "unsourced statements"... every last sentence, fact, and figure in this article is taken directly from a source. So if you would like to point out which statements are unsourced I would very much like to fix them. And yes, some of the prose was taken directly from government sources, which is perfectly legal and sometimes necessary when you are explaining a complicated legal issue such as this one in order to explain the exact intent of the law. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have changed this section to better present the information available. 1987 was the year of another catastrophic bridge collapse and was probably the last year these kinds of figures were in the public eye. Although I have found a more recent source of reference, and have included it along with the old one. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my oppose for now, although I haven't revisited in-depth. While it may be perfectly legal to copy and paste from government sources, that doesn't mean it's OK. For example: "These laws were enacted to protect earth and gravel-surfaced roads from damage caused by the iron and solid rubber wheels of early heavy trucks. By 1933, all states had some form of varying truck weight regulation." I don't see how how this is in any way a "complicated legal issue". Changing a few words around and not using quotation marks is not sufficient to avoid plagiarism. If you need to keep the wording, use quotation marks. Otherwise, recast the prose into your own words. How come there are no definitive sources for how many bridges collapse each year? Seems like this would be a statistic some one would keep track of. Also, some of your sources are missing authors. BuddingJournalist 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of plagarism may be a little strict. I'm not sure a few sentences constitutes plagarism but I'm also not sure how else to reword that sentence. It is a simple statement not flowery prose. Also for the sake of international peace, the ((convert)) template cannot be used inside quotes for the numerous weights that are mentioned. I will quote it if necessary but there are lots of parts of that sentence I deleted for brevity. As far as the number of bridges, there I found another source for a more exact number and have added it. I realize my cite templates are sometimes incomplete and I will work on it asap. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs and external links were found up to speed using the toolbox checker tools.
  • Using WP:REFTOOLS, an issue with the ref formatting was found.
Yikes, thanks. I fixed that issue and now all the refs show up correctly. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are ;)--₮RUCӨ 15:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose Unreferenced statements of opinion. Examples include "The formula is necessary in order to prevent the concentrated weight on a truck's axle from producing stress..." and "In order for an overweight truck to comply with the formula, more axles must be added, or the length between axles must be increased." and "In effect, the formula reduces the legal weight limit for shorter trucks with fewer axles (see table below)." Further, the references need to have the newspapers italicized (this is not the reason for the oppose, merely pointing it out in passing). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply How are these statements of opinion? They merely explain the law in words which are not found elsewhere. If you just look at the table, it shows that if you increase the distance between two axles the weight limit goes up. All you have to do is read the article to understand it is a simple factor of weight vs length vs number of axles. It is common sense if you increase the distance between two points of support the weight distributed between them is reduced if the weight is concentrated between the two points of support... anyway, I have added a cite for the paragraph. All statements are supported by the cite after the fact, so if there is more than one sentence the cite is added at the last sentence. I am puzzled as to how anyone could call these statements of opinion. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "The formula is necessary" part. If you'd said a pure statement of fact that "The concentrated weight of a truck's axle produces stress on the road" that's a fact. The adding of the point that this specific formula is necessary makes it an opinion. I'm sure there are other formula's that would also work to reduce stress. On the second one, it's also possible to comply with the formula by removing weight, isn't it? By only mentioning two possibilities, it's more opinion than fact. The third is more borderline, but the "in effect" gets away from strictly facts into grey areas of opinion. It's always safer to just cite everything, honestly. Not everything is going to be obvious to everyone reading your article. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The reasoning is mentioned in the references, perhaps you missed it. It says:

Bridges on the Interstate System highways are designed to support a wide variety of vehicles and their expected loads. As trucks grew heavier in the 1950s and 1960, something had to be done to protect bridges. The solution was to link allowable weights to the number and spacing of axles. Axle spacing is as important as axle weight in designing bridges. In Figure 1A, the stress on bridge members as a longer truck rolls across is much less than that caused by a short vehicle as shown in Figure 1B, even though both trucks have the same total weight and individual axle weights. The weight of the longer vehicle is spread out, while the shorter vehicle is concentrated on a smaller area.

So the idea that this formula (which is the title of the article) was created to protect roads and bridges is a fact. I have added the words "or weight must be removed" to the second sentence you pointed out, which was never an opinion but simple omittance of options. As for the third sentence, the whole point of the formula is outlined in the main diagram which is at the top of the page. The shorter truck has a smaller weight limit... that is a fact. That is how the formula actually protects the bridge, by making small trucks that weigh as much as the big ones illegal. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have gone through the entire article and added cites for any sentence, line, or end of paragraph that did not already have one. Being the sole contributor to this article, it is easy for one to overlook things. Hopefully this should remove any gray area between what is fact or not. As far as the use of the words necessary in describing the purpose of this formula as "necessary to protect roads and bridges" these are not my words and certainly not my opinion. This is only my second experience with FAC, so I apologize for being verbose, or if I came across as indignant. I am familiar with WP policies and I most certainly have not inserted any personal opinions or original research into this article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I came across as combative. It's been a bad week, and I was probably a bit terser than I needed to be. I'll be running through the sources shortly, and anticipate striking the oppose. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to review this article, and please feel free to make any changes to the wording that you think are necessary (lol, theres that word again). --ErgoSum88 (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Aside from that the article is pretty well written, IMO, and an interesting read. Dave (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have deleted the word "clearly" and fixed the parentheses. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the above mentioned changes, I support promotion to FA. Dave (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support by Fowler&fowler

I will go out on a limb and offer conditional support for the reasons that this article sheds light on something (i.e. weigh stations) many people see while driving long distance (at least in the US) and vaguely wonder about, that topics such as this are seldom found on FAC, that the few paragraphs that I have read thus far seem reasonably well written, and that such topics (hopefully) lie outside the pale of the POV-pushing that can be enervating for both readers and reviewers alike. However, having said that, I feel that the article needs some major fixes. If the author feels that it will take him/her more time than an FAC allows, then it might be wise to first fix those problems and then sail through FAC easily next time around. Anyway, here is a list of must-dos:

As I said earlier, it may be that doing all this will take you more time than you might have right now. In that case, the wise thing to do would be to withdraw the article from FAC, fix those issues and then resubmit. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply About the introduction, I agree. I'll work on this. As far as the sources, most of this page is cited from official government websites, reports, documents, etc. In fact I could cite the entire article strictly from about two or three government websites, however I added more for the sake of variety. There is so much information here I did not want to overwhelm the reader ("Requirement #4 Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." I was merely concerned with the basic purpose and use of the formula, although during my resarch I did become aware of alternative formulas and other things which you suggested I should add. That would not be a bad idea, although I don't believe FA requirements are that strict. If everyone else agrees with you, I'm fine with that. But you're right that its a little too much to do right now and I don't plan to withdraw. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update The introduction has been expanded to three healthy paragraphs, which should be sufficient. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Fowler&fowler

It certainly reads better, but I feel that it still lacks a compelling rationale. In other words the lead needs to explain to the reader why such formulas were even considered. For example, what were the statistics of bridge collapses (and resulting mortality) before the formulas came into effect? Some such history is essential for seducing the reader into reading about mathematical formulas. Will have more comments about the remainder of the article. I still feel it needs a final "summing up" section. The ending is too abrupt. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The reason is already mentioned. "The bridge formula law was enacted to limit the weight-to-length ratio of heavy trucks, and to protect roads and bridges from the damage caused by them." There were no catastrophic bridge col lapses that prompted them to invent a formula to protect bridges, it was a preventative measure taken due to the simple fact that trucks were getting heavier (due to increasing weight limits) and more numerous every year. I could probably try to make this more clear to the average reader, so I will re-read the article and see if it can be improved. However, there is no requirement for a "summing up" section and most articles avoid them, it makes the article read too much like a school paper. And I'm not sure there is enough material about the "future" of this forumla to include any section devoted to it. If you have any ideas about the expansion of this article with relevant material I might be ignorant of, I'm open to suggestions. But right now, I believe this article is as comprehensive as its gonna get without drifting off topic. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new section titled "issues", which raises some points about how the formula does not work. I hope this can be a compromise between us. As I said earlier, information about the faults of this formula is sparse. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is much better (and sorry for the delay in replying). It now leaves the reader with questions to mull over (which is good). BTW, what formulas do they use in other countries? It might be good to add some comparison in the history section. I came across some sources, which I will post here later tonight. These sources talk about weight limits in different states and in different countries. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have found more information which allowed me to expand the Issues section, and I think the article has been substantially improved. I hadn't even considered adding a section covering the faults of this formula, so I appreciate your constructive criticisms. On another note, I haven't found any information on other countries. This article is specific to the U.S. so I'm not sure other countries would be necessary for this article (although it would be a nice touch). --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree that the page is much improved. I am now supporting this FAC for FA. Congratulations on writing a most interesting and unusual article! Finally, after many many years, I know what a weigh station is all about! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of some references. I will post more on the page's talk page, as and when I find them:

PS Two more:
Thank you. Although I must point out that this is only one of the many regulations that a weigh station enforces. They also include the Hours of service, Overweight/oversize load restrictions, and others as well. This is my area of expertise, hence I am currently attempting to expand the coverage of trucking-related articles, and will probably submit more articles of this kind soon and would welcome your thorough feedback in the future. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply To be honest, the introduction was a recent addition which needed some copyediting. I made some fixes, but there are others I have a reply for so I'm listing them above. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will return soon and read the whole thing. Sometimes the lead is weak and it makes me stop reading—probably a bad habit on my part because the lead is not always representative of the entire text. From some of your responses, it seems that I was not entirely clear about the passive problem. For example, "The bridge formula law was enacted." and you asked what more needs to be said. Well, you didn't say who enacted it because you used passive voice. Does that make more sense? If I say "My radio was stolen." (passive), you get far less information than "Jim stole my radio." (active). When you use the passive voice in writing, the subject (Jim) can be hidden or, in this case, completely eliminated. So, it's not a good writing technique unless you really don't know who it was. --Laser brain (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that introductions are supposed to be generalizations of the entire article. I chose not to include who passed the bridge formula law in the introduction for that reason, although I have changed it since. The point of the introduction is to introduce the reader to the subject of the article without weighing them down with details. If one had read the entire article, one would be informed as to the "when, where, why, and how" the law was passed. I'm still unsure what is so passive about the statement "Compliance with the law is checked when vehicles pass through a weigh station", although I have attempted to correct any ambiguity. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my oppose for now on reading the entire article; it looks much improved. --Laser brain (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 until following is sorted out Image concern:

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As far as I know, road signs are not copywritten. I used the image [4] as a starting point for the improved version, which is entirely my own work. The version as it exists now is not a "cleaned up" version, it was drawn from scratch by me (using GIMP). Technically is it derivative as it depicts a road sign, yes, but the work is entirely my own. If there needs to be a different license for the image then I would be glad to change it. I'm pretty ignorant of the technical details of copyright law so I only applied the license that I thought was most applicable. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The effort is yours but as the product is not an original concept, you did not create a copyright for your work (for which to release). Instead, this image inherited the restrictions from the source work, meaning that it cannot be used for non-commercial purposes. End-result: it is not a "free" image, and fall under would have to be considered for fair-use. It would not qualify for fair-use as its only purpose is to illustrate a traffic sign that shows an increasing weight limit for vehicles with a greater number of wheel axles, which words can perfectly describe (and of the sign's disputable significance to the article). Images of road-signs can be protected by copyrights (unless the sign is designed by a federal body instead of by a state body, or the design is totally made of words or simple shapes, which for this case does not qualify). What matters is that the Ohio Department of Transportation claims non-commerical use for the image you copied from their website. Jappalang (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every state has these weight limit signs. Images of this same sign can be found in other states, such as Minnesota, Michigan, South Dakota, Massachusetts, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Oregon. Furthermore, the Ohio website states content may not be redistributed for profit. Even if this sign was the property of Ohio (which it is not), we are not using the image for profit. I have not found any federal website that clearly states this sign is property of the federal government, but its widespread use across many states should be sufficient enough proof that this sign is not the property of Ohio. I fail to see how this sign is any different from a speed limit sign or any other road sign. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this website which proves this sign is property of the federal government. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We are not using the image for profit": this cannot constitute a reason for putting an image up as "free" on Wikipedia and Commons. The purpose of the projects are to distribute "free" material that can be used by anyone for any purposes, even commercial. Hence, an image that is restricted for non-commercial purposes is, for all purposes, considered non-free content. The main problem with this sign is the vehicular icons, which do not qualify for simple shapes. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Copyright on highway shields on the subject of copyrighted road signs.
  • The FHWA image is not an exact match for this derivative image; however, it is evident that the Ohio DoT took their layout and vehicle icons (the first three icons on the Ohio DoT sign is simply an extension—copy and paste—of the first vehicle on the federal sign). One problem would be that the link you brought up is of the 2003 MUTCD, whereas the Ohio DoT site is for 1999 (archived in 2005). We can solve head off concerns (improbable as such may be) that the federal work was based on the Ohio image with 1998's MUTCD, available here (published by the federal DoT[5]). Likewise, the Ohio DoT's image is a derivative of the federal work (it's non-commercial restriction would be null). Unless someone comes up with a convincing argument on how the Ohio DoT was original in their work, your derivative work is based on federal public domain work. Jappalang (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images verifiably in public domain. Jappalang (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments. I am almost ready to support but have a few questions.

Karanacs (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I will give you a quick answer because I don't really have a lot of time right now to look up the answers, but I will tell you what I know from experience.
Update Ok I've added info about penalties. Its slightly rough so it probably needs some copyediting. As far as "repeatedly violating the rules", the driver is responsible for checking the vehicle's weight and paying the fines. So companies really have no part in this. Although I suppose if a certain company was connected to a high degree of violations, certain actions would be taken, but I'm not sure this has ever happened. Usually states are happy just to collect the fines and ignore the problem. Also I found some raw numbers regarding violations of weight limits. But there is no mention of percentages. I suppose that would be a hard thing to pin down, but if you would like this info to be added, I would be happy to oblige. As far as international implications, I have found a source for this and I'm still digesting it [6] to see if there is any salvagable info. So far all I've been able to determine is that Mexico has a bridge formula, but I still don't know if it is based on the US formula (I suspect that it is). Let me know what you think. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the additions about penalties. As for international, I was more interested in how strictly we treated trucks from Canada and Mexico when they entered the US; I don't think it necessary to discuss whether those countries have their own formulas. Karanacs (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You are not the first person to complain about the thin-ice analogy. But hear me out... wikipedians are always talking about "stating the obvious". One such example of this mantra in action is the first line from an article which recently passed FA nom, Utah State Route 128: "State Route 128 (SR-128) is a state highway in the U.S. state of Utah." The first sentence mentions the word "state" three times! Talk about patronizing. But is it necessary? I think so. We can't all be geniuses, so sometimes we have to dumb things down and say things that look and sound stupid, but make it absolutely clear what we are talking about. Yes, any idiot should be able to understand the purpose of the formula after reading the introduction and looking at the picture... but just in case, there is that one person who is still confused, perhaps the thin-ice analogy will finally spell it out for them. If you, or anyone else, still insists that it must go... then I will object no further. Thats all I can say. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm not going to insist upon its removal, even if I had the clout to. It was a minor rankle, and your explanation is... satisfactory. :) Steve T • C 07:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Random early morning supportive comment by Fowler&fowler): I didn't think it was such a bad analogy. ... and there is at least one person on the planet who needs to hear about it: a guy I saw fishing one late March years ago on the edge of the ice in a half-thawed lake in Central Minnesota ... Speaking of upper-Midwestern winter traditions—and now you can see I am really elevating this discussion—this also means that if someone were looking to take their car spinning on a frozen lake, they might be better off in a Hummer stretch limo or the wiener mobile than in the family Jeep.
More seriously, though, Steve is right in that most people, if they found themselves on that (literal) thin ice, would crawl tentatively on all fours rather than walk confidently on twos. But I'm guessing also that most people might not ponder the question unless they were in that situation, so the analogy is still helpful. The only part of the quote above that sounds a little awkward to me is, "This difference in weight distribution would allow a person to cross an area of ice while lying down that might otherwise collapse under their body weight while standing up." What do you think of something along the lines of: "In situations where walking or running is too risky, this difference in weight distribution might allow a person to drag themselves while prone, or crawl on their elbows and knees, safely across the ice."? "Lying down," at least to me, suggests a static state. Also "that might otherwise collapse" seems to be suggesting that "lying down" is collapsing, not the ice. ... And now they should hurry up and give you that star. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about we just change the "lying down" to "crawling"? That seems to be a simpler solution. Which I just did. Otherwise, make any changes you feel are necessary. On another note, its been almost two months since I nominated this article. Not that I'm complaining! This article has been vastly improved, and I'm grateful. I'm just wondering if the admins have forgotten about this one. Whats the record for the longest debates over an FA nom? I'm game for setting a new one. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More