# Talk:Clinton Railroad Bridge

This article is currently titled "Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Bridge", but I wonder if it should actually be something else.  The references show that this bridge was built in 1907, presumably by the Chicago and North Western Railway (note the spelling and capitalization difference; a railroad that was purchased by Union Pacific in the 1990s), but they also list the bridge as the "Clinton Railroad Bridge" and make no mention of the C&NW.  Should this article be at Clinton Railroad Bridge or Chicago and North Western Railway Bridge?  Slambo (Speak) 14:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The picture that had accompanied this article for more than a year was actually of a bridge in Pierre, South Dakota. I looked in Wikimedia commons and the best I could find was a stereoscope of the old bridge. Group29 (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Clinton Railroad Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060913135011/http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/National/SandBar/1.4bridge.htm to http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/National/SandBar/1.4bridge.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clinton Railroad Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Helloimahumanbeing (talk · contribs) 19:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
First and second paragraph under Planning, doesn't seem to fit, would be better for the articles on Fulton and Lyons, especially in their current form. The first paragraph of planning should also have http://iagenweb.org/clinton/history/arch/hist.htm, which is used later in the article, used as a source. In fact, the four paragraphs of the planning section could be shortened into 1.
How does the section look @Helloimahumanbeing:? —WikiHelper26 (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@WikiHelper26: Maybe remove "The need for a crossing on the Upper Mississippi River was long-known, back to the 1832 signing of a treaty between Chief Keokuk of the Blackhawk Nation and the United States government" and reword "In 1852, the citizens of Lyons were excited to learn that a railroad was to be built westward across Iowa from the city, which would have led to the likelihood of a railroad crossing of the Mississippi River between Lyons and Fulton."Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Helloimahumanbeing: I removed the first second ( Done on that part). As for the second sentence mentioning 1852, I did some changes to it as well.
@WikiHelper26: I would remove the word excited and make more like"the citizens of Lyons learnt..." Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 Done —WikiHelper26 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
"The train traveled from Wyoming to Illinois", shouldn't it be "The train was traveling from Wyoming to Illinois"? "In 2013, Union Pacific has planned to build a new $400 million span bridge to replace the current one", the has should be removed. "On March 12, 2019, news reporters from the KWQC-TV announced that the bridge would be replaced.", I don't think this should be there.
First sentence fixed. Second sentence removed.  Done. --WikiHelper26 (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 
23. 
24. 
25. 
C. It contains no original research: 
"Unfortunately, the Lyons and Iowa Central Air Line Rail Road... foundered and eventually went out of business before work was completed to connect Lyons to Iowa City, 73 miles (117 km) to the west." not mentioned in only provided source of the paragraph, also, the word unfortunately probably should be removed. "The Iowa Land Company was organized in 1855 with the announcement that a railroad crossing was to be attempted South of Lyons and Fulton, at Little Rock Island. The land company bought Bartlett's holdings on the Iowa side of the river and re-platted them under the name Clinton, Iowa, in honor of the Governor of New York, DeWitt Clinton.", No source provided, and Little Rock Island doesn't seem to exist.
@Helloimahumanbeing: This source mentions "The land company bought Bartlett's holdings on the Iowa side of the river and re-platted them under the name Clinton, Iowa, in honor of the Governor of New York, DeWitt Clinton.": http://iagenweb.org/clinton/history/arch/hist.htm. I've added the source and changed some locations of it in this diff. --WikiHelper26 (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
"thus ending the ascendancy of steamboats in favor of railroads", [source] says something close, "ending the war between the bridge operators and steamboat operators", but not exact
@Helloimahumanbeing: I rephrased the sentence to “therefore stopping the occupation of steamboats and approval of railroads.” —WikiHelper26 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
"The swing span is the largest ever erected, and it was the first electrified swing bridge.", diret copy paste from http://johnmarvigbridges.org/Clinton%20Rail%20Bridge.html. "The bridge has a vertical clearance of 18.7 ft (5.7 m) above normal pool." basically copied from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/06/11/E8-13085/drawbridge-upper-mississippi-river-clinton-ia-repair-and-maintenance
Sentence mentioning the bridge being the first electrified swing bridge removed. Changes done to the sentence mentioning it's vertical clearance. --WikiHelper26 (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
"firefighters said that 25 ties that were warped by heat would need to be replaced" copied from https://books.google.com/books?id=B5NFAAAAIBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=ties&f=false
Sentence fixed. —WikiHelper26 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Third paragraph of planning's mention of the name "Calico Line" is unneeded
Removed the sentence.  Done. --WikiHelper26 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
First images caption is better suited for insertion in the text
@Helloimahumanbeing: Could you clarify this sentence? Do you suggest I remove it from the caption and place it somewhere else? --WikiHelper26 (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@WikiHelper26: Yes, possibly at the end of the first paragraph.
@Helloimahumanbeing: Removed the caption ( Done), added “and is adjacent to the Gateway Bridge.” after channel. It looks like this: “The bridge is a truss bridge with a swing span crossing the main river channel and is adjacent to the Gateway Bridge.“ —WikiHelper26 (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@WikiHelper26: I'd just give the first image a caption along the lines of "The Clinton Railroad Bridge in (Year photo was made) Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 Done --WikiHelper26 (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Nominator has been blocked
Helloimahumanbeing, WikiHelper26 was blocked a few days ago; according to their talk page it was a checkuser block, so it's unlikely that they'll be back. It's up to you how you conclude this nomination; if it's close, you may want to try to find someone from one of the WikiProjects to deal with anything that still needs to be addressed; if there's a fair amount of work still to be done, you may want to simply close the review. I'm sorry for the bad news; thanks for taking on this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Mentioned twice, in the lead and body text -- "From 1859 to 1908, the mileage in operation increased from 28,789 to 229,230,....". Needs explanation. Moriori (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
And this -- "the bridge was declared a post route, therefore stopping the occupation of steamboats and approval of railroads". What is a post route. What is occupation of steamboats? It says the declaration stopped occupation of steamboats and approval of railroads. Not clear. Is it meaning to say that declaring it a post route gave approval to rail or prevented introduction of rail?. Moriori (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The article states that this bridge is the second rail bridge over the Mississippi River and the first on the Upper Mississippi.  This in not correct if "Upper Mississippi" is defined as above St Louis.  The first rail bridge was the 1856 bridge between Rock Island Illinois and Davenport Iowa, about 30 miles south of Clinton. I wonder if the authors believe the Rock Island-Davenport bridge is south of the "Upper Mississippi."  There are multiple sources that document the Rock Island Davenport bridge, built by Henry Farnam, was the first rail bridge over the Mississippi and is on the "Upper Mississippi."  See the bridge history at www.riveraction.org  I believe, but do not have a source, that the Clinton Bridge was the first iron bridge over the Mississippi.  The 1856 bridge was wood construction Eatongeo (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)