# Talk:Samson Occom Bridge

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:

"The Samson Occom Bridge, named after Samson Occom, a Mohegan tribal chief, was built in 1936 by what was at the time the Connecticut State Highway Department. "
"The bridge carries 1,100 vehicles per day as of 2011."
And sources which are not specific enough, IMO:

References:
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. --doncram 18:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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 | Talk 18:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
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. --doncram 19:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
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♪piano 21:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
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 | Talk 13:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samson Occom Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 23:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: I will take this. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments after the initial review: I will do a full review after the listed concerns are addressed. Ping me when you're ready. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Second round review comments: 
1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright:  Needs work
"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)
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
b. general catch all and aesthetics:  Acceptable
Comments after the second review: Fix that sentence and then ping me. It's ready otherwise. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

PASSED All concerns addressed. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)