# Talk:Fort Steuben Bridge

First, I think the ref I've named odot1 has more stuff in it for people who can read it better than I can.  Second, the ODOT site I found it on has a LOT more potential stuff for someone who is interested in combing through it.  I might do some of that myself. - Denimadept (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The whole collection of plans: http://www.historicbridges.org/ohio/fortsteuben/plans.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.179.128 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fort Steuben Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 17:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Going to review this over this week.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 17:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You probably should tell the cost of the toll.
Good point, found cost in 1940.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
"Improvements to the bridge were made in 1956." What type of improvements?
Snippet I picked up doesn't say, all I could find was that improvements were made then!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Ref 10 is cited improperly. See {{Cite press release}}.
It's not essential though is it, even citation templates aren't compulsory. Perhaps User:ChrisGualtieri could address that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Ref 5 is missing a few details. The Ohio Good Roads Federation wrote the book.
Publisher added, couldn't find any more details in google books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
"appropriation bill for the Department of Transportation mentioned" Optional, you should change Department of Transportation -> United States Department of Transportation, so it would not be confused for ODOT.
Article's going on hold. Happy two-year anniversary of the demolition!—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 03:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
United States Department of Transportation was linked anyway but I piped it. Should be OK now @CycloneIsaac:. All addressed I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Other than that one citation (I'll fix it), the article looks fine, passing!—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 23:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. Blofeld and CycloneIsaac! Been really busy as of late with life, thanks for polishing it up some more. This article was something that I am not too major of a contributor, but I was asked to help work on it and I'm glad its a GA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. If you can get this to GA, we might have a Good topic.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 02:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let's start working on it. - Denimadept (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)